IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3530 of 2010 along with CWP Nos. 1345 of 2010, 1346 of 2010, CWP (T) Nos. 10885, 10909, 10910, 10913, 10914, 10915, 10916 and 10917 of 2008. Date of decision: 11.8.2010 1. CWP No. 3530 of 2010 Ms. Naveen Lata .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and others ….Respondents 2. CWP No. 1345 of 2010 Narender Kumar .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and others ….Respondents 3. CWP No. 1346 of 2010 Shyam Singh .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and others ….Respondents For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. 4. CWP No. 10885 of 2008 Sant Ram .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and others ….Respondents 5. CWP No. 10909 of 2008 Ms. Chumma Devi .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and another ….Respondents 6. CWP No. 10910 of 2008 Sumitra Devi .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and another ….Respondents 2 7. CWP No. 10913 of 2008 Savitri Devi .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and another ….Respondents 8. CWP No. 10914 of 2008 Phalbir Chand .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and another ….Respondents 9. CWP No. 10915 of 2008 Om Parkash .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and another ….Respondents 10. CWP No. 10916 of 2008 Sushma Devi .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and another ….Respondents 11. CWP No. 10917 of 2008 Kalpana Devi .. ..Petitioner Vs State of H.P. and another ….Respondents For the petitioners: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners, in all the cases, are aggrieved since they have not been getting wages, though they are working as PTA teachers. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as PTA teachers. All the petitioners have obtained 3 their qualification from ‘Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag’, Allahabad for appointment of Language Teacher. It is pointed out by the petitioners that though in the R&P Rules, it is now prescribed that the said qualification will not be recognized as qualification for regular appointment, in case of several teachers, appointed on PTA basis, posted on regular vacancies, the Government has given relaxation. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that such relaxation has been given taking note of the fact that there is no Language Teacher course. It is further submitted that the Language Teacher Course is recognized for the purpose of appointment as a Language Teacher. It is further submitted that the certificate issued by ‘Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag,’ Allahabad has been recognized by Himachal Pradesh and the Central Government also for the purpose of Language Teacher. The petitioners seek an opportunity to approach the Government pointing out all these aspects. The petitioners finally submit that they are not praying for regular appointment for the time being. Since their grievance is restricted only to the wages due to them in respect of their services already rendered and are being rendered as PTA teachers and on certain aspects the Government has taken decision taking note of the fact that the petitioners have already been working as PTA teachers for quite sometime and that PTA is a stop-gap arrangement, therefore, all these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:- “That the petitioners may make representation either jointly or individually before first respondent within a period of one month from today alongwith a copy of this judgment, in which 4 the matter shall be duly considered by first respondent, adverting to the submissions made therein, and appropriate orders in accordance with law and justice will be passed thereon within another three months.” All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Copy dasti. (Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 11, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks/pankaj) Judge.