IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7118 of 2010. Decided on: 15.11.2010 Chetan Verma and others …. Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge For the petitioners: Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “1) The respondents may kindly be directed to release PTA salary/grant in aid to the petitioners w.e.f. their respective dates fo joining till 16.6.2007 to the seven petitioners. 2) The respondents may kindly be directed to release the past arrears of grant in aid to the petitioners till its payment within a fixed time schedule alongwith interest.” 2. It is submitted that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court in Pyare Lal & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. decided on 11.5.2010 in CWP 2 No.2988 of 2009. The text of the judgment reads as follows: “2. According to the Director, the qualification of diploma post by the petitioner has been recognized only on 13.7.2007. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the grant-in-aid only w.e.f. 13.7.2007. The relevant portion of the reply reads as follows: “iv) That the contents of this para are admitted being a matter of record. However, it is submitted that at the time of appointment of the petitioners on PTA basis the diploma of the petitioners was not recognized in the State of H.P. The Government has decided to give the recognition to all such diploma awarded by deemed Universities during the period 1-6- 2001 to 31.8.2005 for the purpose of employment under the State Government which was conveyed to all the heads of the institution in the Pradesh on 13.7.2007. Therefore, they are not entitled for past arrears/Grant-in-aid. v) That in reply to this para it is submitted that the matter with regard to the diploma awarded by deemed University through extension Canters during the period 01-06- 2001 to 31-08-2005 will be eligible for seeking employment in the State of H.P. which is evident from the Annexure P-6 annexed by the petitioner with the present writ petition. This decision was circulated to all the Deputy Directors of Elementary Education in the H.P. on 24-01-2009. It is further submitted that as per information received from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Shimla, the Grant-in- aid to the petitioner are being paid regularly since 16-07-2007 the date from 3 which the recognition was given to the diploma awarded by the deemed Universities by the State of H.P. 3. We are afraid, the stand taken by the Director cannot be appreciated. It is to be noted that the Director has no case that the recognition is w.e.f. 13.7.2007. The stand is that the order regarding recognition was taken only on 13.7.2007. In other words, the diploma passed by the petitioners has been recognized by the department as a qualification for appointment to the post of PTA teacher. It is not a case where owing to change of syllabus in the diploma, the qualification is approved as restricted to period after 13.7.2007. It is simply a case where the decision of the competent authority being rendered only on 13.7.2007. Thus, the qualification always stood as the qualification required for appointment as the teacher. It is declaratory relief in other words. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled to their wages in terms of the grant-in-aid for the entire period they have worked, in case they are otherwise eligible. The needful in this regard shall be done and the benefits to which the petitioners are found eligible shall be re-worked and disbursed to them within a period of two months from the ate of production of the copy of this judgment and if not, the petitioners are entitled to the interest @ 10% from the date of respective engagements and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the said interest portion. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.” 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the similarly situated persons. There will be a direction to the 1st/2nd respondent to look into the matter in the light of the judgment referred to above and in case the petitioners are similarly situated a similar benefit shall be granted to the petitioners herein also within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition by the petitioners. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. November 15, 2010 (Justice V.K.Ahuja) (tilak/bss) Judge