Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sheela Devi And Others vs State Of H.P. And Others on 29 October, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
C.W.P. No. 7326 of 2013
Date of decision : 29th October, 2015
.
____________________________________________
Sheela Devi and others Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others Respondents
_______________________________________________
Coram :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
of Whether approved for reporting ? No _______________________________________________ ___ rt For the Petitioner : Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. V.K.Verma, Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Parul Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
_______________________________________________ Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.1 This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to pay grant-in-
aid as calculated by the Principal vide Annexure P-3 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date it became due."
Whether reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:15:43 :::HCHP 2 The facts in brief may be noticed.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued for filling up .
the post of Drawing Master on PTA basis for Government Middle School, Ajroli, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, petitioner No. 1 applied and came to be appointed on 21st September, 2007. However, one Dila Ram filed a of complaint against such employment and consequently Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide his order, dated 3rd October, rt 2008 set aside his appointment.
3. Since, the local PTA was in dire need of the services of petitioner No.1, it continued with his services.
In the meantime, the petitioner No. 1 also assailed the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal vide order, dated 25th July, 2009 and the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate on 3rd October, 2008 was quashed and set aside.
4. The grievance of petitioner No. 1 is that despite the order having been quashed and further, despite the fact that he has been teaching in the school w.e.f. 3rd October, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:15:43 :::HCHP 3 2008 to 25th August, 2009, he has not been paid the remunerations for the said period.
5. Similar is the case of one Virender Singh, who .
unfortunately died on 12th July, 2012 and instant petition has been filed by his brother and it is not in dispute that his case is identical to that of petitioner No.1.
6. The respondents have contested the claim of the of petitioners by filing reply, wherein it is stated that the services rendered by the petitioners for the period for rt which they are now claiming remunerations, were rendered voluntarily and are, therefore, not entitled to grant-in-aid as during this period, their appointment orders were quashed and set aside and moreover, no interim orders were passed by the appellate authority.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case.
7. At the outset, it may be observed that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have not actually worked for the period for which they are claiming remunerations. It is also not in dispute that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was quashed and set ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:15:43 :::HCHP 4 aside by the Deputy Commissioner and the appointments of the petitioners were upheld. Once it is so, then I see no reason why the petitioners should not be paid for the period .
for which they have actually worked. Once the claim of the petitioners has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been quashed and set aside, then essentially the services of of the petitioners shall relegate back to the date when it was illegally dispensed with.
rt
8. Having said so, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to release, within a period of three months, the amount as worked out in Annexure P-3 in this petition, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9@ per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of actual payment. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
29th October, 2015(K) ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ), Judge ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:15:43 :::HCHP