Himachal Pradesh High Court
Villam Singh vs State Of Hp & Ors on 7 April, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2467 of 2015 .
Date of decision: 7.4.2016.
Villam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & Ors ...Respondents
Coram
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No.
For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior
rt Advocate with Ms. Abhilasha
Kaundal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms.Meenakshi Sharma,
Addl.AG with Ms. Parul Negi and
Mr.Pankaj Negi, Dy.AGs.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the following substantive relief:
i) That an appropriate writ orders or directions may kindly be issued and the directions may kindly be given to the respondents to release Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 20th September, 2014 when Sub Tehsil Kupvi of District Shimla has been included in the tribal/difficult areas in furtherance to the policy to engage the teachers on SMC basis along with interest @ 9% per annum.
2. In nut shell, facts giving rise to this petition are that a post of Lecturer (Political Science) was lying vacant for quite some time in Government Senior Secondary School, Dhar Chandna. Since the School Management Committee (for short 'SMC') was competent to appoint the teachers where the posts Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:04:41 :::HCHP 2were lying vacant, they in order to ensure that the studies of the students do not suffer, offered appointed to the petitioner to the .
post of Lecturer (Political Science) vide appointment letter dated 5.5.2012.
3. Petitioner was otherwise fully eligible as he had qualified BA and thereafter done MA with more than 50% marks.
of Petitioner is continuously performing his duties, but complains that he is not being paid grant-in-aid though respondents rt themselves have formulated a policy dated 17.7.2012 with respect to the grant-in-aid to teachers appointed on SMC basis in tribal/difficult area. Along with the policy, the areas which fall in the tribal/difficult area have also been notified. However, at that point of time, the area where the petitioner was teaching did not fall within the area and thus the petitioner was not entitled to grant-in-aid.
4. However, another notification dated 20th September, 2014 (Annexure P-4) was issued by the government, which includes the area where the petitioner is teaching. After inclusion, the petitioner is alleged to have made representation for release of grant-in-aid in terms of the aforesaid notification, but the respondents took no decision on the same leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
5. Respondents have filed their reply and the only ground for denying grant-in-aid to the petitioner is contained in para-3 of the reply, which reads thus:
"3.That in reply to this para it is respectfully submitted that the government has notified the policy dated ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:04:41 :::HCHP 3 17.7.2012 to engage the teachers through SMC on period basis in difficult/tribal area against vacant posts. Thereafter this policy was extended vide notification .
dated 16.8.2014 to all the schools which were upgraded during academic session 2013-14 and 2014-15 irrespective of the area in which they fall and all those sanctioned post which were lying vacant for over 2 years from the date of notification i.e. 16.8.2014. The SMC of of GSSS Dhara Chandna engaged the petitioner vide resolution No.11 dated 5.5.2012 as temporary measure without any remuneration. It is pertinent to mention here rt that GSSS Dhar Chandna has been declare as difficult area vide notification dated 19.11.2013 and prior tot his, the GSSS, Dhar Chandna was in normal area. As the engagement of petitioner was prior to notification dated 16.8.2014 read with SMC policy 17.7.2012, hence the engagement of petitioner is not under the policy."
6. Here, it shall be apt to quote the reply submitted to paras 5 and 6 of the petition which reads thus.
"5-6. That in reply to this para, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was engaged by the SMC of GSSS Dhar Chandna prior to the policy 17.7.212, therefore, he cannot claim benefit under SMC policy. Hence petitioner is not entitled for any GIA."
7. It would be evident from the perusal of the contents of the aforesaid reply that the only reason to deny the petitioner grant-in-aid is that he had been engaged prior to the notification dated 16.8.2014 read with SMC policy dated 17.7.2012 and, therefore, cannot claim the benefit under the SMC policy. It is not at all their case that the petitioner's appointment is any manner illegal, or contrary to law or that he is not qualified. Mere fact that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:04:41 :::HCHP 4 the area where the petitioner was teaching was notified only on 16.8.2014, would at best, give fresh cause to the petitioner to lay .
claim to the grant in aid prospectively from the date of notification i.e. 16.8.2014 and not retrospectively when the original notification was issued on 17.7.2012, which admittedly did not cover the school and area where the petitioner was teaching.
of
8. Having said so, I find no difficulty in concluding that the action of the respondents in not paying grant-in-aid to the rt petitioner with effect from 16.8.2014 is illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, the same cannot be countenanced or sustained.
9. In view of above discussion, present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner in accordance with the rules, with effect from 20th September, 2014.
With these observations, petition is disposed of, as aforesaid, leaving the parties to bear the costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
April 7, 2016 (sl) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:04:41 :::HCHP