Allowed¶49

Rangila Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Oct 2024CWP/5227/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grant-in-Aid; School Management Committee (SMC); SMC-appointed teacher; Physical Education Teacher; Government school; arbitrary and discriminatory denial of benefits; acquiescence by Department; similarly situated persons paid Grant-in-Aid; Villam Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 2467 of 2015; SMC policy non-compliance; exploitation of unemployed teachers; Himachal Pradesh; writ petition allowed; payment within eight weeks; neutral citation 2024:HHC:9679-DB.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; respondents directed to pay Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner from the date of his appointment, in accordance with law, within eight weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of accordingly. ¶49

Rangila Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Office Order dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P-7) should be quashed and set aside. +1 more

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Denial of Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner, who was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in a Government School by the School Management Committee and whose appointment the respondent-Department did not object to, is completely arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶44

Key takeaways

The respondents' distinction between Villam Singh's case and the petitioner — that Villam Singh was engaged when the SMC Policy to engage Teachers was not in vogue — is without any rationale; since the Department permitted the petitioner to impart education year after year without terminating his services, it acquiesced in the appointment and it does not lie in the Department's mouth to deny the benefit of Grant-in-Aid.ratio¶47
The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner Grant-in-Aid, in accordance with law, from the date of his appointment, within eight weeks; pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No. 5227 of 2021, decided 01.10.2024, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) by a Physical Education Teacher appointed on 05.07.2011 by the School Management Committee of Government GHS Reyur, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi (a Government school). The respondent-Department neither objected to the appointment nor terminated the petitioner's services, allowing him to teach year after year. Held: denial of Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner is completely arbitrary and discriminatory; the respondents' attempted distinction from the precedent in Villam Singh, CWP No. 2467 of 2015 (decided 07.04.2016) — that SMC Policy was not in vogue when Villam Singh was engaged — was rejected as without rationale, the Department having acquiesced in the SMC appointment. Petition allowed: Grant-in-Aid payable from the date of appointment, in accordance with law, within eight weeks.

¶1

2024:HHC:9679-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

¶3

SHIMLA

¶4

CWP No. 5227 of 2021 Decided on 01^st October, 2024

Rangila Ram

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Coram

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

¶12

1Whether approved for reporting?

¶13

For the petitioner: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate.

¶14

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶15

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶16

CMP No.17757 of 2024

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, present

¶18

application seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and

¶19

the main case is ordered to be listed for final consideration

¶20

today itself.

¶21

CWP No.5227 of 2021

¶22

With the consent of the parties, the petition is being

¶23

disposed of today itself.

¶24

¶25

2024:HHC:9679-DB

¶26

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

¶27

alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶28

“ A. That the impugned Office Order dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶29

B. That appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for grant-in-aid since the time of his appointment and also the respondent may be directed to disburse the grant-in-aid to him from the date of his initial appointment till date @ 9% per annum .”

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that after completion of

¶31

his 10+2, has done his Bachelor in Physical Education, in the year 2002. This was followed by issuance of advertisement for filling the post of Physical Education Teacher through PTA School Management Committee. Pursuant to a resolution dated 05.07.2011 passed by the School Management Committee of Government GHS Reyur, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P., the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.3 vide resolution dated 05.07.2011, as a Physical Education Teacher, in the said school. As per the petitioner, he continues to serve in the said school till date. His grievance is that he has not been paid Grant-in-Aid though persons who similarly situated as the

¶32

¶33

2024:HHC:9679-DB

¶34

petitioner, who also have been appointed through School Management Committee, are being paid the Grant-in-Aid.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the Department of not releasing Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner, is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that when the petitioner is performing the work of a Physical Education Teacher in a Government School, then, it is both arbitrary and discriminatory on the part of the respondents to deny her Grant-in-Aid. Learned Counsel also submitted that the issue otherwise is no more res integra and the petitioner is entitled to the relief being prayed for in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2467 of 2015, titled Villam Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 07.04.2016, SLP filed against which judgment by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, was dismissed.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, by drawing the attention of the Court to the reply filed, has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Physical Education Teacher by the School Management Committee, by

¶37

¶38

2024:HHC:9679-DB

¶39

passing a simple resolution, till the joining of a regular teacher out of the SMC fund and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any Grant-in-Aid. He further submitted that as the appointment of the petitioner was without compliance to the formalities as are envisaged in the SMC policy, therefore also, the petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

¶40

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended thereto.

¶41

It is a matter of record that the petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in GHS Reyur, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P., on 05.07.2011 by the School Management Committee of the School. It is also a matter of record that the School where the petitioner was engaged by the School Management Committee happens to be a Government School. That being the case, when the respondent-Department did not object to the appointment of the petitioner as a Physical Education Teacher in the Government School by the School Management Committee, denial of

¶42

¶43

2024:HHC:9679-DB

¶44

benefit to the petitioner, as are being claimed by her by way of present writ petition, is completely arbitrary and discriminatory. This Court fails to understand as to how a Teacher like the petitioner, who actually has imparted education in a Government School to the students and as this Court stands informed, the students who have been taught by him have passed out successfully from the said School, can be denied the benefit of Grant-in-Aid, on the reasons assigned in the reply. If the reasoning given therein is accepted by this Court, then, this Court would be giving premium to the act of the respondents of exploiting persons like the petitioner, who on account of lack of transparency in the system of recruitment of Teachers to Government Schools, are being forced to impart education to students, taking advantage of their unemployment, at meager salaries. The distinction which has been carved by the respondents in Villam Singh’s case vis-à-vis the petitioner that Villam Singh was engaged when SMC Policy to engage Teachers was not in vogue, is without any rationale, because if the Department felt that appointment of the petitioner was bad, then, it was duty bound to have had immediately terminated the

¶45

¶46

2024:HHC:9679-DB

¶47

services of the petitioner. This, admittedly, was not done by the Department. The Department acquiesced to the appointment of the petitioner by the School Management Committee by not calling upon the Principal concerned to terminate the services of the petitioner. It permitted the petitioner to impart education to the students admitted in the School, one academic year after another academic year. In the light of said act of the Department, now it does not lie in the eyes of the Department to deny the benefit of Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner.

¶48

Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this

¶49

petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner Grant-in-Aid, in accordance with law, from the date of his appointment. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

¶50

also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶51

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶52

October 01, 2024 (Vinod)

¶53

Digitally signed by BHUPENDER KUMARDN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=04d8bcd7412dcb18b7b081df02fb3b89ecc4a0c8 BHUPENDE f8a66ab97285dc56e62d41fe, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=2ccc91b5122501da0ce3678b0e2b7 R KUMAR bd5fa9b09937769da5501e1f4e7ad448bc5, CN=BHUPENDER KUMARReason: I am approving this document with my legally binding signatureLocation: Date: 2024-10-15 12:00:55

¶54

BHUPENDE

Rangila Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangila Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karam Singh Chauhan Vs State of Hp

Shashi Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohan Meakin Ltd.

Er. Rahul Sharma Vs Hpseb Ltd. and Ors.

Basu Dev and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Guman Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Arun Kumar Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another