State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes

Mr.Anup Advocate General, alongwith Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: M/s Onkar Jairath, Shubham Sood and Piyush Mehta, Advocates. Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral) This Review Petition has been preferred by the State for review of judgment dated 11.03.2019, passed in CWP No.2218 of 2018, titled as Sangeeta Devi & others vs. State of H.P. & others, whereby petitioners, serving in Government Colleges as PTA Lecturers, were also held entitled to the relief of Grant-in-Aid in their favour under Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules, 2006.

2. Review Petition has been preferred only on the ground that Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules/Policy, 2006, vide Notification dated

08.09.2014, was extended only to 14 newly opened Government Degree Colleges, in the year 2014 in the State, in order to make the Colleges functional, whereas, petitioners were working in already existing Colleges other than 14 newly opened Colleges, and Grant- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 in-Aid to PTA Rules, 2006 was not in force in already existing Colleges at the relevant point of time, being discontinued on

03.01.2008.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the State that in paragraph-3 of the impugned judgment, it has been recorded that Grant-in-Aid Scheme had again been made applicable in the Government Colleges vide Notification dated 08.09.2014 whereas this Scheme was made applicable only to newly opened 14 Colleges and, therefore, basis on which petition was allowed, was not in existence and, thus impugned judgment deserves to be reviewed.

4. It has been further argued on behalf of the State that petitioners were entitled for remuneration from concerned PTA out of the funds collected by the Students, but have no right to claim Grant-in-Aid from the State. It has further been contended that implementation of the judgment will cause irreparable loss to the State exchequer and State is facing paucity of funds, and, therefore, also judgment deserves to be reviewed.

5. We have gone through record, including instructions placed on record during hearing of the Writ Petition, which are available in the writ record.

6. In the impugned judgment, it has been recorded that Scheme has again been made applicable in the Government Colleges vide Notification dated 08.09.2014. It has not been stated in the impugned judgment that Scheme has been made applicable to all Colleges of the State. On the basis of Notification dated

08.09.2014, it has been observed that Scheme was made applicable to the Government Colleges, and this fact is not incorrect 3 because in the year 2014 Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules/Policy was extended to 14 newly opened Government Colleges. In reply to the writ petition, it was stand of the respondents that Scheme, at relevant point of time, was not applicable to the Colleges, as it was discontinued on 03.01.2008. In this context, it has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that Scheme was made applicable in Government Colleges, which is a correct fact recorded in the judgment, because admittedly, vide Notification dated 08.09.2014, Scheme was extended to newly opened 14 Degree Colleges. It is also noticeable that extension of Scheme is only possible, if the same is in existence. With respect to discontinuation of the Scheme on 03.01.2008, no Notification has been placed on record either during pendency of the Writ Petition or alongwith Review Petition. It is also noticeable as evident from Annexure ‘C’ placed on record by the State during hearing of writ petition that there were large number of other Teachers working in various Colleges on PTA basis under the PTA Policy/Scheme, who were continued as such till 2015 when their services were taken over by the State, on contract basis vide Notification Dated 17.01.2015 and this fact also indicates that PTA Scheme was in existence and in force in Government Collages and Teachers/Lecturers were being continued on PTA basis. There is material on record to establish that PTA Lecturers engaged in Government Colleges were being granted Grant-in-Aid under Rules whereas petitioners, doing the identical work as PTA Lecturers were being deprived from the same.

7. So far as plea of paucity of funds, seeking review of impugned judgment is concerned, is not a valid ground for review of 4 the impugned judgment. State cannot avoid implementation of the judgment of the Court on account of non availability of funds.

8. To receive pay and wages as per entitlement is a right of an employee which is acquired by rendering service. Being a Model Employer State is expected to treat all similarly situated employees in like manner by paying equal emoluments to all employees of the same Class. Constitution mandates casting duty upon State to adhere to Article 14 of the Constitution of India by not acting arbitrarily.

9. Arbitrary and discriminatory conduct of the State is antithesis to mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State must act in a fair manner as a Model Employer instead of contesting the cases like a chronic litigant.

10. Despite repeated observations as well as directions of the Courts in numerous cases that State must behave like a Model Employer, State, irrespective of persons in power and change in Guard, successively keeps on to formulate, adopt and practice exploitative policies as a device to avoid extension of legitimate rights of the employees for which they are otherwise entitled. On intervention of the Courts directing the State to extend such benefits like pay scale, increment, leave and counting of service etc., State every time tries to deprive the employee from such benefit by changing nomenclature of post and scheme to continue with practice of temporary/ad-hoc appointments.

11. We are constrained to record aforesaid observations because PTA Teachers were engaged by the concerned PTA, for not appointing or posting regular Teachers/Lecturers in the Colleges 5 and State, voluntarily, permitted to continue appointment on PTA basis by shirking from its responsibility to provide Teachers to avoid payment of remuneration to the Teachers, by appointing PTA Teachers, by adopting and practicing exploitative policies, which is not expected from the State being a Model Employer.

12. In paragraph-3 of the impugned judgment, it has been recorded that Scheme was made again applicable in the Government Colleges w.e.f. June 2004. In this line “2004” is a ministerial mistake as the Scheme was made applicable in 14 Colleges w.e.f. June 2014. However, this ministerial mistake has no impact on the merit of the case and observation and finding recorded in impugned judgment have been recorded on the basis of material available on record.

13. With aforesaid observation, we do not find any illegality or perversity or any error apparent on the fact of record, warranting review of impugned judgment.

14. Accordingly, petition is dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Jyotsna Rewal Dua), Judge. September 27, 2023 (Purohit)