Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hem Lata vs State Of H.P & Others on 5 August, 2015
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 5388 of 2011
Decided on : 5.8.2015
Hem Lata .....Petitioner.
of
Versus
State of H.P & others. ....Respondents.
Coram: rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R Palsara, Advocate.
For the Respondents-State: Mr. R.S Thakur, Additional Advocate
General.
Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)
The petitioner claims through this writ petition a direction to the respondents of theirs releasing in her favour salary at the rate of Rs.4800/- per mensem for the period commencing from 19.4.2007 till 5.6.2008 for hers rendering services as Lecturer PTA (Economics) in Government Sr. Secondary School Randhara, Tehsil Sadar. The petitioner as of now as apparent on a reading of Annexure P-3 stands, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:45 :::HCHP...2...
on the joining of a Lecturer (Economics) on regular basis, dis-engaged .
for imparting coaching to the students in the subject aforesaid in the school concerned. The petitioner does not seek the setting aside or quashing of Annexure P-3. The petitioner would have a legitimate right to claim salary @ Rs.4800/- per mensem from the respondents of only in the event of her selection and appointment having been preceded by adoption by the PTA rt committee concerned of the mandated procedure envisaged in the apposite rules. However, a perusal of the reply furnished by the respondents to the writ petition discloses that the selection and appointment of the petitioner as PTA Lecturer (Economics) in the school concerned was not preceded by adoption by the PTA concerned of the recognized legitimate procedure, rather the reply of the respondents and a perusal of the record discloses that the PTA committee in gross and flagrant violation of the norms proceeded to appoint her as Lecturer PTA (Economics) in the school concerned. Consequently, with the appointment of the petitioner herein as Lecturer (Economics) on PTA basis in the School concerned having not been made by adoption by the PTA committee concerned of the envisaged procedure, begets a stain or a taint to her selection and appointment. Therefore she cannot ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:45 :::HCHP ...3...
claim any right to receive from the respondents salary quantified at .
the rate of Rs. 4800/- per mensem for the period she rendered or performed duties as Lecturer (Economics) in the school concerned. In sequel, she was hence tenably paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- as salary out of PTA fund. The right to receive from the respondents No.1 and 2 salary of at the rate of Rs. 4800/- per mensem would have accrued in her favour only in case her selection/appointment was preceded by adoption by rt the PTA concerned of the contemplated procedure. However, the PTA of the school concerned having not adopted the envisaged procedure while selecting and appointing her, consequently the defrayment to her of salary at the rate of 1000/- per mensem out of PTA fund was a legitimate defrayment to her by the respondent No.3 for the period she rendered duties as lecturer (Economics) on PTA basis, in the school concerned. She however cannot claim salary at the rate of Rs.
4800/- per mensem for the period she worked as a Lecturer (Economics) on PTA basis as the said amount is derivable by the respondents No. 3 from the grant-in-aid made to it by the respondents No.1 and 2, whose onward disbursement to the petitioner herein would be warranted only in the event of hers having been selected and appointed by the PTA committee concerned on adoption by it of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:45 :::HCHP ...4...
the procedure contemplated in the apposite rules. However, when for .
the reasons aforesaid her selection and appointment by the PTA concerned is in infraction of the envisaged/contemplated procedure, she hence is not entitled to a salary of Rs.4800/- per mensem.
Consequently, there is no merit in the petition, the same is accordingly of dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
rt
5th August, 2015 ( Sureshwar Thakur ),
(priti) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:45 :::HCHP