2026:HHC:10873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No. 73 of 2019

Reserved on:25.03.2026

Decided on : 08.04.2026

Kashmir Singh ...Petitioner

Versus

State of HP and others ...Respondents

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi,

Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy

Advocate General.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

The petitioner has laid challenge to an order

dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure A-4), passed by respondent

No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for his re-

engagement as DPE on Parents Teacher Association (for

short ‘PTA’) basis has been rejected on the ground that

neither the petitioner was covered under PTA-GIA nor his

services were terminated by Enquiry Committee or on

joining of regular incumbent.

2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that

1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

 2026:HHC:10873

the petitioner who was having the qualification of Bachelor

of Physical Education, was appointed as DPE on the

recommendations of the PTA body vide office order dated

02.07.2007 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.4-

Principal, in Government Senior Secondary School (for short

‘GSSS’) Jassai, District Kangra, H.P., which post was lying

vacant. The petitioner was asked to join his duties w.e.f.

03.07.2007 and earlier to this, he was working as Machine

Operator in a private limited factory at Baddi. Though the

petitioner was performing his duties with respondent No.4-

School with full sincerity, devotion, honesty as well as to the

entire satisfaction of his superiors, but his services had

been terminated on the pretext that a regular DPE has

joined in the said school. A news item had appeared in the

daily newspaper on 01.09.2013, when the State

Government had ordered to re-instate the services of 61

Grant-in-Aid (for short ‘GIA’) proposed PTA teachers, and the

petitioner had made a representation dated 13.10.2013, for

his re-appointment on PTA basis. However, no response was

received by him and thereafter, he had preferred an appeal

against his removal before the Additional District

Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, who vide order dated

3

 2026:HHC:10873

18.11.2014 (Annexure P-6), after hearing respondent No.4,

had allowed the appeal and the PTA of GSSS Jassai, was

ordered to appoint him against the vacant post of DPE, on

PTA basis subject to the fulfillment of the Recruitment and

Promotion Rules (for short ‘R&P Rules’) of the Government

for the said post.

3. After the decision, the petitioner made

representation on 23.01.2015 and thereafter sent a

reminder on 25.05.2015 to respondents No.2 & 3, but

despite availability of vacant post of DPE, no action was

taken, which compelled him to approach this Court by way

of writ petition bearing CWP No. 2919 of 2016, titled,

Kashmir Singh vs. State of H.P. and others. The said

petition was disposed of on 21.11.2016, with a direction to

the respondents to examine the representations made by

the petitioner and make a decision thereupon within eight

weeks, as per the Rules occupying the field. After passing of

the order by this Court, the petitioner made representation

to the respondents and thereafter respondent No.2 rejected

the claim of the petitioner on the ground that as per the

submission of the Principal, GSSS Jassai, the petitioner was

never covered under PTA-GIA Rules nor his services were

4

 2026:HHC:10873

terminated by Enquiry Committee or joining of a regular

incumbent.

4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said

order has preferred the present writ petition before this

Court on the grounds that the impugned order is illegal,

arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of

the Constitution of India. It has been averred that

respondent No.2 has wrongly concluded that the petitioner

was never covered under PTA-GIA, whereas, as per office

order dated 22.01.2008 (page-47), the respondents had

sanctioned the funds under GIA to PTA in the financial year

2007-08, and the school where the petitioner was working

as DPE finds mention at Serial No. 120. It was further

submitted that the post of DPE from the date of termination

of his services till date is lying vacant in GSSS Jassai. The

learned Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at

Dharamshala, had directed the PTA of GSSS Jassai to

appoint him against the vacant post of DPE, on PTA basis.

However, despite that no action was taken to implement the

said order.

5. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition

and averred that the petitioner was engaged as DPE by the

5

 2026:HHC:10873

PTA of Government Senior Secondary School, Jassai, District

Kangra, purely on temporary basis, out of local PTA fund on

03.07.2007, on consolidated amount of ₹1500/- up to

31.03.2008. The engagement of the petitioner was not

made according to GIA PTA policy and he was not covered

under the policy of Rules GIA to PTA. As per the information

received from the Principal, GSSS Jassai, District Kangra, no

written record has been found/available in the institution

regarding the removal/termination on 31.03.2008. The

petitioner was called for personal hearing as per the

direction given by this Court and the concerned head also

appeared. The Principal of the school had submitted that

the services of the petitioner were not terminated due to

joining of regular incumbent. Moreover, the post of DPE was

lying vacant up to 25.02.2011. Since neither the petitioner

was covered under PTA-GIA policy, nor his services were

terminated by Enquiry Committee or on joining of regular

incumbent, the representation made by him was rightly

rejected.

6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and

also placed on record the resolution dated 19.09.2007,

passed by the PTA, whereby the case of the petitioner for

6

 2026:HHC:10873

GIA was to be sent to respondents-State.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General, for the

respondents-State and also gone through the record

carefully.

8. The respondents have not disputed the initial

appointment of the petitioner, vide office order dated 2

nd

July, 2007 issued by respondent No.4 as DPE on PTA basis in

Government Senior Secondary School Jassai, District

Kangra, H.P., against a vacant post. Before proceeding

further, the said order passed by respondent No.4, is

reproduced as under:-

“No. EDN-GSSS-JSI (PTA file)/2007

O/o The Principal,

Govt. Sr. Sec. School Jassai, Distt. Kangra, HP

Dated: Jassai-176054, 2

nd

July 2007

Office order

On the prior recommendation of the PTA

body elected for the year 2007-08. Sh. Kashmir Singh, S/o

Sh. Makora Ram, village Busal, Teh. Baroh, Distt. Kangra,

H.P., is hereby engaged against DPE Post which is lying

vacant last three years and order to join his duty on and

before 3

rd

July 2007 at Govt. Sr. Sec. School Jassai, Distt.

Kangra, H.P., with entitled Rs.1500/- PM out of PTA fund.

He will not be entitled for salary during monsoon/summer

vacation.

His service will be considered terminated as

and when regular DPE join duty at Govt. Sr. School, Jassai,

Distt. Kangra, H.P.

-Sd-

Principal

Govt. Sr. Sec. School Jassai

Teh. Baroh, Distt. Kangra (HP)

Code 208

7

 2026:HHC:10873

Endst No :- Even Dated: 2

nd

July 2007

(1) Copy to:- Sh. Kashmir Singh, S/o Makoru Ram, VPO

Busal, Teh. Baroh, Distt. Kangra, HP, for information and

necessary action please.

(2) Guard file.

(3) Sign of PTA President:-Sd-

(4) Sign of PTA Vice President:-Sd-

-Sd-

Principal

Govt. Sr. Sec. School Jassai

Teh. Baroh, Distt. Kangra (HP)

Code 208”

9. A perusal of office order dated 02.07.2007

clearly reveals that respondent No.4-Principal had offered

the appointment to the petitioner against the post of DPE,

lying vacant for the last three years out of PTA fund. The

petitioner had made the representation, when the State

Government took a decision to re-employee those teachers,

whose services were terminated, and when no action was

taken by the respondents, he had preferred an appeal

before Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at

Dharamshala, who vide order dated 18.11.2014 (Annexure

P-6) had called the Principal of the school, who had

admitted that the petitioner was appointed on PTA basis,

but due to joining of a regular teacher, his services were

terminated. He had also admitted that the post of DPE was

lying vacant due to transfer of regular teacher. It was also

8

 2026:HHC:10873

observed in the order that there is nothing on record to

show that the appointment was made against the policy.

Since, the services of the petitioner were terminated

because of joining of a regular teacher, only and not by the

committee under the Chairmanship of Sub-Divisional Officer

(Civil), the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was

directed to be offered the appointment on PTA basis against

the vacant post of DPE, however, the appointment is subject

to the fulfillment of R&P Rules. The said order reads as

under:-

“IN THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANGRA

AT DHARAMSHALA.

CASE No. 37/2014 Date of Institution 18-07-2014

Date of Decision 18-11-2014

Kashmir Singh S/o Sh. Makoru Ram r/o Village Bushal PO

Jassai Tehsil Baroh District Kangra.

...Appellant

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by Sh. Kashmir

Singh against his removal from the post of DPE on PTA

basis, from Senior Secondary School Jassai Tehsil Baroh

District Kangra.

Sh. Ravinder Singh, Principal Govt. Senior

Secondary School Jassai present.

It has been averred by the applicant that he

had joined as DPE on PTA basis in Govt. Senior Secondary

School Jassai on 03-07-2007 and jcontined till 31-03-2008.

He has further alleged that his services were terminated

due to joining of the regular teacher.

On the other hand Sh. Ravinder Singh

Principal of the school has stated that the applicant

was appointed on PTA basis but due to joining of

regular teacher his services were terminated. He

has further stated that at present the post of DPE

9

 2026:HHC:10873

is laying vacant due to transfer of regular teacher .

I have perused the record placed on file with

minute care. The bare perusals of record reveal that the

applicant was appointed as DPE on PTA basis. His services

were terminated on joining of the regular teacher on 31-

03-2008. There is nothing on record to show that the

appointment was made against the policy.

As the services of Kashmir Singh were

terminated because of joining of regular teacher only and

not by the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sub

Divisional Officer © I, therefore find that the appeal

should be allowed. Hence the appeal is allowed and the

PTA of Govt. Senior secondary School Jassai may appoint

the appellant against the vacant post of DPE on PTA basis.

This appointment is subject to the fullfilment of R&P Rules

of Govt. for this post.

The case file be consigned to GRR.

-Sd-

Rakesh Sharma

Additional District Magistrate

Kangra at Dharamshala”

10. Admittedly, the respondents have not challenged

the above order passed by the Additional District

Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala. Despite the specific

direction given by the Additional District Magistrate Kangra,

the petitioner was not offered the appointment, which

forced him to file the writ petition before this Court bearing

CWP No.2919 of 2016, titled, Kashmir Singh versus

State of H.P. and others . The same was disposed of on

21.11.2016, directing the respondents to examine the

representations made by the petitioner.

11. Respondent No.2, after a direction being given by

this Court to decide the representations, has taken a U-turn

10

 2026:HHC:10873

that the petitioner was engaged as DPE purely on local PTA

fund on 03.07.2007 (wrongly written as 03.07.2017) at

GSSS Jassai with the honorarium of ₹1500/- per month.

Further the Principal of the school had submitted that

services of the petitioner were not terminated due to joining

of regular incumbent; and the post of DPE was lying vacant.

It has been recorded that neither the petitioner was covered

under PTA-GIA, nor his services were terminated by the

Enquiry Committed or joining of regular incumbent and

thus, the representation made by him was rejected. The

observations made in the order were contrary to the earlier

stand. The Principal of the school, who remained present

before the Additional District Magistrate, had admitted that

the services of the petitioner were terminated due to joining

of a regular teacher. The post of DPE is lying vacant due to

transfer of a regular teacher. However, while rejecting the

claim of the petitioner, respondent No.2 took summersault,

firstly; the engagement of the petitioner was not under PTA-

GIA scheme and secondly; his services were neither

disengaged by the Enquiry Committee nor on joining of a

regular incumbent. Once the respondents did not challenge

the order dated 18.11.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the

11

 2026:HHC:10873

Additional District Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala and

also not disputed the facts recorded in the said order

wherein it was admitted by respondent No.4 that the

services of the petitioner were terminated on joining of a

regular teacher on 31.03.2008, the findings returned by

respondent No.2 otherwise are unsustainable in law. It is not

the case of the respondents that the appointment of the

petitioner was made against the policy and the post was not

vacant.

12. From the facts emerging from the order passed

by Additional District Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala, it

is evident that just to deny the reengagement to the

petitioner, different stands have been taken. This Court had

passed an order on 31.08.2021 directing respondents No.2

to file an affidavit after receipt of the instructions dated

31.08.2021, wherein it was stated that budget under GIA

was allotted to school, but GIA was not released to the

petitioner for the reason that he was engaged by PTA of

concerned school on temporary basis out of local PTA fund

on 03.07.2007, and thus not covered under the policy of

Rules GIA to PTA. In the affidavit filed by the respondents, it

has been averred that other teachers namely Sh. Sunil

12

 2026:HHC:10873

Singh (PET), Smt. Veena Kumari (DM), Smt. Sanjeela Devi

(Shastri) engaged in GMS Jagni under complex GSSS Jassai

(Kangra) and Sh. Gulshan Walia (LT) engaged in GSSS Jassai

(Kangra), were covered under GIA whereas, the petitioner

was engaged on local PTA fund, therefore, GIA was not

released to the petitioner.

13. A perusal of office order dated 02.07.2007

reveals that the petitioner was engaged on the

recommendation of the PTA by respondent No.4 that too

against the vacant post of DPE lying vacant for the last

three years. Even if no GIA was released in favour of the

petitioner by the respondents, once he was appointed after

following the proper procedure by the PTA and thereafter,

the Principal of the school had issued the appointment

order, the petitioner could not have been denied the re-

engagement when a policy decision was taken to reengage

all those PTA employees whose services were terminated.

The plea taken by the respondents that the services of the

petitioner were not disengaged on the joining of a regular

hand, cannot be believed, especially when the earlier

Principal had admitted that his services were terminated

after joining of a regular hand and even on the said date

13

 2026:HHC:10873

when the order was passed by the Additional District

Magistrate, the post of DPE was lying vacant in the school.

14. It is not the case of the respondents that the

petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification to

hold the post and further on the date when the petitioner

was offered the appointment, the PTA committee had

recommended his name for appointment and the post was

not in existence. The Principal of school had issued the

appointment letter dated 02.07.2007. Further, the

respondents have also not disputed the factum that the PTA

Committee of the school had passed a resolution on

19.09.2007, when a request was made to the Government

for the release of GIA. This Court has considered the issues

regarding the release of the GIA to the employees who were

appointed under the PTA/SMC in numerous cases and

directed the respondents to release the GIA.

15. In the present case the services of the petitioner

were terminated on account of joining of a regular hand at

his place and when the Additional District Magistrate Kangra

at Dharamshala had passed the order after hearing the

Principal of the school, the directions were given to offer

him appointment, but despite that the respondents to nullify

14

 2026:HHC:10873

the said order had taken a new and different stand, which is

not tenable for the reasons that the earlier incumbent, who

was working in the school had admitted that the services of

the petitioner were terminated on the joining of a regular

hand and further the post was also lying vacant.

16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP

No.4670 of 2015, titled, Raj Kumar Pathania versus

State of Himachal and others had the occasion to deal

with the issue of disengagement of an employee who too

was employed on PTA basis after framing of GIA Rules to

PTA. After considering various judgments of this Court had

directed the respondents not to fill up the post of PGT

Commerce which was expected to fall vacant on 31.12.2021

and to reengage him forthwith. The period from the date of

disengagement till re-engagement was ordered to be

counted for the purpose of continuity and seniority etc.

Relevant paras of the judgment read as under:-

“10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed

reliance on judgment dated 17th July, 2018, passed by

Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 379 of 2018, titled

a Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others to

substantiate his plea seeking direction to re-engage the

petitioner against vacancy or by creating vacancy for

reengagement of the petitioner.

11. In above referred Vinod Kumar’s case Division Bench

had directed to re-engage the petitioner therein forthwith

on PTA basis with all admissible benefits including

15

 2026:HHC:10873

releasing of Grant-in-Aid as per GIA Rules 2006 from initial

appointment to the date of his disengagement and w.e.f.

his re-engagement till continuation of his engagement as

PTA teacher. The period from the date of disengagement

till his reengagement was directed to be counted for the

purpose of continuity and seniority etc, but without

payment of any back wages. A direction was also issued

to the respondents to transfer the incumbent working in

the concerned school somewhere else for re-engagement

of petitioner therein against vacancy so created.

12. In present case, petitioner was appointed after

framing of GIA to PTA Rules by respondents-State on

31.8.2006 and in case his appointment at that time was

without any sanctioned post, then also during his

engagement as PTA teacher the post was available w.e.f.

15.9.2007, which remained vacant till 2013 and the said

post was filled only after termination of services of

petitioner.

13. It is also relevant to record that creation of second

post in the year 2007 establishes that there was dire

necessity of one more PGT Commerce teacher in

Government Senior Secondary School, Sulah but for lapse

and failure on the part of respondents-State to create

another post for providing regular teacher, PTA was

constrained to appoint petitioner in addition to single

teacher working on regular basis. After creation of second

post, no regular incumbent was appointed against the

said post and work of teaching students was taken

continuously from the petitioner as PTA teacher.

Therefore, petitioner is entitled for Grant-in-Aid from his

initial appointment, i.e. 1.9.2006 till his termination on

28.2.2013.

14. Petitioner is also entitled for re-engagement in terms

of judgment dated 17.7.2018 passed in CWP No. 379 of

2018 and also entitled for Grant-in-Aid from his re-

engagement till his continuation as such.

15. At this stage, it has been informed by learned counsel

for the petitioner that one post of PGT Commerce is

expected to fall vacant on 31.12.2021. If so, then

respondents are directed not to fill up that post, but

instead re-engage the petitioner against the said vacancy.

16

 2026:HHC:10873

16. In view of above discussion, respondents are directed

to reengage the petitioner forthwith as PGT Commerce on

PTA basis in Government Senior Secondary School, Sulah

and to release all admissible benefits including Grant-in-

Aid as per GIA Rules 2006 from 1.9.2006 till 28.2.2013

within two months from today and also to continue

sanction and release the Grant-in-Aid in future from his

date of re-engagement till his continuation as such. The

period from 1.3.2013 till re-engagement of the petitioner

shall be considered for the purpose of continuity and

seniority etc. as PTA teacher for extension of benefits as

extended to other PTA teachers, but without payment of

any back wages. Respondents are also directed not to

post any other incumbent against the post likely to fall

vacant on 31.12.2021 in Government Senior Secondary

School, Sulah and in case someone has been appointed or

posted or transferred against the said vacancy, he shall

be adjusted somewhere else in nearby stations for

extending of benefit of reengagement to the petitioner

forthwith.”

17. The respondents-State have not denied the

policy decision taken by the State Government when it had

decided that those teachers who had been disengaged on

account of joining of a regular hand or on the basis of some

enquiry, their services will be taken back. The

representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground

that neither the petitioner was disengaged on account of

joining of a regular hand nor on the basis of the report of

the Enquiry Committee. Since the petitioner was fulfilling

the qualification crieteria and the post of DPE was lying

vacant on the date when the order was passed by the

Additional District Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala, the

17

 2026:HHC:10873

petitioner ought to have been reengaged. Even if a regular

incumbent had joined on the date when the order was

passed by respondent No.2, on 29.03.2017, a regular hand

could have been transferred to some other place to give

way to the petitioner to join his services as DPE on PTA

basis. It is not even the case of the respondents that the

petitioner had left the job at his own and, therefore, the

action of the respondents not to reengage his services

despite the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the

Additional District Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala, is

bad. The order under challenge is arbitrary and

discriminatory and such is unsustainable in law.

18. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and

the impugned order dated 29.03.2017, passed by

respondent No.2, is quashed and set aside with a direction

to the respondents to reengage the petitioner on the post of

DPE, on PTA basis, in Government Senior Secondary School

Jassai, Tehsil Baroh, District Kangra, H.P., forthwith, and

release him the Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 03.07.2007, on notional

basis, and on actual basis from today. The petitioner is also

held entitled to seniority, increments and other benefits

notionally w.e.f. 03.07.2007 and on actual basis from today.

18

 2026:HHC:10873

In case the respondents do not reengage the petitioner as

DPE, the benefits flowing from the judgment shall be paid to

him alongwith interest @6% per annum from today till its

payments. There shall be no orders to cost. The pending

applications, if any, shall also be disposed of.

08

th

April , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )

(Anurag) Judge