Allowed

Usha Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jul 2024CWP/705/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Shastri teacher appointed through a School Management Committee in a Government school was denied Grant-in-Aid while similarly situated appointees received it. The Court held the denial arbitrary and discriminatory given the Department's acquiescence, and allowed the writ petition directing payment of Grant-in-Aid from her date of appointment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay petitioner Grant-in-Aid from date of appointment, within eight weeks; pending applications disposed accordingly.

Usha Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:4304

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 705 of 2020

¶4

Decided on: 02.07.2024

¶5

Usha Devi … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶12

CMP No. 10104 of 2024

¶13

In view of the averments made in the application, the

¶14

same is allowed.

¶15

CWP No. 705 of 2020

¶16

With the consent of the parties, the case is taken up for final consideration today itself.

¶17

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia , prayed for the following relief:-

¶18

“That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner w.e.f. 23.06.2012 in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Apex Court as per Annexure P-3 and P-4

¶19

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶20

¶21

in the interest of justice and fair play.”

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that after completion of his 10+2 in the year 2006, has done her Shastri course from Himachal Pradesh University in the year 2013. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter she passed the Shastri Teacher Eligibility Test in the year 2014. It is further the case of the petitioner that Government notified a policy on 17.07.2012, for the purpose of engaging teachers through School Management Committees on period basis, in difficult/tribal areas, against vacant posts. This policy vide notification dated 16.08.2014 was extended to the schools, which were upgraded during the academic session 2013-14 and 2014-15, irrespective of the area where the schools were located. This was followed by issuance of advertisement for filling the posts of various teaching posts including that of Shastris through School Management Committee. Pursuant to a resolution dated 23.06.2012 passed by the School Management Committee of Government Middle School, Sadrooni, District Chamba, H.P, the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.4 vide resolution dated 23.06.2019 as a Shastri, in the said school. As per the petitioner, she continues to serve in the said school till date. Her grievance is that she has not been paid Grant-in-Aid though persons who similarly situated as the petitioner, who also have been appointed

¶23

¶24

through School Management Committee, are being paid the Grantin-Aid.

¶25

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 Shastri 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 Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 07.04.2016, SLP filed against which judgment by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, was dismissed.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Law Officer, by drawing the attention of the Court to the reply filed, has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Shastri Teacher by the School Management Committee, by 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

¶27

¶28

the formalities as are envisaged in the SMC policy, therefore also, the petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Law Officer and also gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended thereto.

¶30

It is a matter of record that the petitioner was appointed as a Shastri Teacher in Government Middle School, Sadrooni, District Chamba, H.P on 23.06.2019 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 Shastri Teacher in the Government School by the School Management Committee, denial of 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

¶31

¶32

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 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.

¶33

Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner Grant-in-Aid, in accordance with law, from the date of his

¶34

¶35

appointment. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 02, 2024 ( narender )

Usha Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwant Kaur Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Ashwani Kumar

Raveena Bibi and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Hari Ram and Ors.

Hem Raj Vs Hrtc and Another

Shiv Chand Vs State of Hp