IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 41 of 2007 Decided on 6.5.2010 Shubh Lata ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate For Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate No. 1 to 3. General. For respondent : Mr. N.K Thakur, Advocate. No. 4. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers: i) That the action of the respondents in reducing the basic pay from Rs. 6200/- to Rs. 5480/- and effecting the recovery of Rs. 16,975/- and further stoppage of the annual increments forever of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may be further directed to restore the basic pay of the petitioner and all annual increments on the post of TGT (Arts) with all incidentals and consequential benefits alongwith the interest at the rate of 12%. iii) That the respondents may be further directed to refund the amount of Rs. 16,975/- which has been wrongly and illegally recovered from the petitioner by the respondents. 2. The simple factual dispute is as to whether the petitioner was originally appointed as TGT (Arts). The appointment letter Annexure P-5 would show that she was appointed as TGT (Arts) on 2.7.1990. But, for the purpose of grant-in-aid, she was shown adjusted against Language Teacher. 3. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General with reference to the reply, submits that the petitioner was appointed as Language Teacher and her appointment as TGT was not against a sanctioned post. We are afraid that position in the reply as well as the contention of the learned Senior Additional Advocate General cannot be appreciated. The various communications from the Department, starting with Annexure P-12, would show that the appointment of the petitioner was against TGT (Arts) and that she had only been adjusted against TGT for the purpose of grant-in- aid. In the seniority list also, the petitioner is shown in the list of TGT (Arts). Annexure P-16 communication from the Deputy Director (Education), would also show that the petitioner was appointed as TGT (Arts) and that she is the senior most TGT (Arts) teacher available in the school. 4. Thus, it is fairly clear that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post of TGT (Arts) on 2.7.1990, but only for the purpose of grant-in-aid, she was shown adjusted against L.T teacher. It is seen that the petitioner has been teaching Social Studies etc. apart from Hindi. Thus, it is clear from the records that the petitioner was appointed only against a sanctioned post of TGT (Arts) in D.A.V School, Una. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The recovery made from the petitioner shall be refunded immediately. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits of fixation of increments etc. including other service benefits. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of. 5. Copy dasti. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice May 6, 2010(k/s) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge