IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP. No. 1614 of 2009. Date of Decision:7.9.2010. _______________________________________________ Sanjay Chauhan and others ….Petitioners. Versus. State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?.No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 4.: Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is two fold. Firstly, that the petitioners have not been paid salary w.e.f. 10th October, 2007 till March, 2009. In reply thereto, the affidavit of the State is clear, unequivocal that grant-in-aid could not be released to the school for the reason that Model Code of Conduct was in force. The State pleads: “14. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the respondent State has now decided to release Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.Yes. 2 the share of due and admissible Grant-in-aid to the PTA of GSSS Mondhi District Kangra and as soon as codal formalities are completed the Grant-in-aid will be released to the PTA. 14-A That since the respondent department has decided to release the due and admissible grant- in-aid to the PTA of GSSS Mondhi District Kangra for the period they have actually served as the grant-in-aid could not be released to the PTA due to the Model Code of conduct in operation on the day when the petitioners joined in the institution on 10.10.2007. But now after decision as per record, the grant-in-aid due will be released within four weeks.” In view of the stand taken by the respondents, a direction is issued that the petitioners be paid salary on or before 31st October, 2010. The second grievance made by the petitioners is that their services were terminated without any reason whatsoever. The pleading of the respondents is that: “13.That in reply to this para it is submitted that the Parent Teachers Association vide resolution dated 4.3.2009 had unanimously resolved that the services of the petitioners will be terminated. Accordingly Principal has advised the petitioners not to come to the institute as per the resolution passed by the concerned PTA.” I do not find any such resolution on the record. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the reply is supported by an affidavit and that be taken as being authentic. This submission cannot be accepted. 3 In these circumstances, a direction is issued that respondent No.2-Director of Higher Education shall hear the petitioners and then render a reasoned decision as to whether the termination of their services are in accordance with law or not. For this purpose, respondent No.2 shall grant an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard in the matter and to place on record such material as they may wish in support of their case. The respondents shall decide the representation(s) of the petitioners within four weeks from today. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court again in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 7, 2010(R)