Himachal Pradesh High Court
Devi Saran vs State Of H.P. & Others on 16 September, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2638 of 2015 .
Date of Order: 16.9.2016
Devi Saran. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others. ...Respondents
Coram
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No.
For the Petitioner: rt Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. (oral) This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued, whereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2014, Annexure P-7, issued by the respondent No. 2.
(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Grant-in-Aid in favour of the present petitioner at par with the similarly situated persons who were also appointed just before the petitioner under the same policy and procedure in the year 2008, which fact is evident from Annexure P-8, with all service benefits.
(iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to strictly adhere to the rules of the PTA Policy and not to replace the petitioner either by way of fresh regular/contract appointment or transfer."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Drawing Master on 7.4.2008 on PTA basis, but was not paid grant-in-
aid, constraining him to file CWP No. 1242 of 2012, which was disposed of by this court on 13.3.2012 with direction to the respondents to Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:30 :::HCHP 2 CWP No. 2838 of 2015 consider his case as per the decision already rendered in CWP No. 1476 of 2010. However, when the claim for grant-in-aid was not .
acceded to, the petitioner again approached this Court by medium of CWP No. 523 of 2014 and this Court directed the petitioner to make representation to respondent No. 2, who inturn was directed to decide the same within three months after affording the petitioner an of opportunity of being heard. In compliance to the directions, the respondents vide order dated 3rd June, 2014 rejected the claim of the rt petitioner, constraining him to file the instant writ petition.
3. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order has not appreciated the fact that the petitioner had been repeatedly engaging the attention of the respondents to appoint him against the approved sanctioned post, but no heed was paid to the same. He has further submitted that similarly situated persons have been given grant-in-aid and, therefore, it is a case of invidious discrimination.
4. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner by filing reply, wherein it has been averred that merely because grant-in-aid has been wrongly released in favour of certain teachers would not in itself furnish any cause of action or entitled the petitioner for the similar benefit. It is apt to reproduce para 4 of the preliminary submissions, which read thus:-
"4. That the petitioner has not given discriminatory treatment by not treating similar to the PTA appointees mentioned in Annexure P-4, because if Grant-in-Aid is wrongly released in their favour, then their cases are required to be dealt by the respondent department separately not to mean that the present petitioner is also entitled for ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:30 :::HCHP 3 CWP No. 2838 of 2015 similar treatment. Mistake once committed should be rectified not to be repeated. Moreover, the petitioner engaged against the post of Drawing Master falls within jurisdiction of Elementary Education .
whereas PTA appointees mentioned in Annexure P-4 are Lecturers (now called PGT) relates to Higher Education Department who entirely amenable for their engagement under PTA (GIA) Rules, 2006 which were not in force during the appointment. Therefore, Annexure P-7 dated 3.5.2016 passed by the replying respondent is just and proper.
of Furthermore, the petitioner cannot be given undue benefit for which he is not entitled on the basis of Annexure P-4. In the case of petitioner, the mistake if any committed at any level of the department of Higher Education cannot be replicated in the instant case, otherwise the rt petitioner without any entitlement enjoys the fruit of other's mistake.
Hence the question of release the Grant in Aid to the petitioner as per rules does not arise at all. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice."
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case.
5. The moot question is as to whether the present is a case of invidious discrimination as alleged by the petitioner or are the respondents fully justified in denying him the grant in aid though the same has been granted to the similarly situated persons but under the orders of the Court.
6. Identical issue came up before this court in CWP No. 2549 of 2015, titled as Hem Raj Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 7.8.2015 and CWP No. 358 of 2015, titled Chander Parkash Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 1.7.2016 and it is not even disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:30 :::HCHP 4 CWP No. 2838 of 20157. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The judgments rendered in the aforesaid cases shall mutatis mutandis apply to the case .
of the petitioner and consequently the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 3.6.2014 is quashed and set aside and the respondent-State is directed to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner w.e.f. 7.4.2008. The same be positively released along with arrears within a period of three of months from today, failing which, respondents shall be further liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount.
rt With these observations, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
16th September, 2016 (KRS) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:30 :::HCHP