IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1552 of 2006 Mahabir Singh Mehta ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others …Respondents. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G.D. Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in Parent Teacher Association Scheme (from hereinafter referred to as P.T.A.) in a private school which is under grant in aid. The status of the teacher is that of lecturer (Biology) under P.T.A. Prior to 20th September, 2003 all the P.T.A. teachers appointed in various schools being run by a management committee were given an honorarium by funds which was not a part of its “grant in aid”. Consequent to the Government Order dated 20th September, 2003, however, this honorarium was also included under grant in aid to the schools. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Rajendra Dobhal has stated that as per order dated 15th September, 2003 (annexure no. 5 to the writ petition) only such P.T.A. teachers were liable to be given the honorarium which were appointed on or before 5th September, 2003. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a P.T.A. teacher on 3rd August, 2003 by the management committee of “Shri Laxman Vidyalaya Inter College, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun” and he joined on 15th August, 2003 and therefore he clearly comes under the Scheme (i.e. Government Order dated 20th September, 2003) yet honorarium is not being given to him. From the record which the petitioner has filed and from what is contended by the State Authorities, it appears that the petitioner is not being 2 given honorarium because the name of the petitioner was not forwarded at the relevant point of time by the management committee of the concerned school to the Education Authorities. Therefore, this is a factual dispute as to whether at the relevant point of time the petitioner was actually teaching in the school. The contention of the petitioner is that he was teaching prior to 5th September, 2003 and this contention of the petitioner is also supported by the management committee. Therefore, the District Education Officer, Dehradun is hereby directed to hear the petitioner as well as the other administrative or education authorities which District Education Officer deems fit and proper including the committee of management in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the petitioner was actually working in the school as P.T.A. teacher prior to 5th September, 2003. It is made clear that in case the District Education Officer reaches the finding that the petitioner was teaching at the relevant point of time and also presently teaching as P.T.A. teacher, he shall without any further delay grant honorarium to the petitioner excluding the amount he has already been given. It is made clear that the District Education Officer shall hear the parties and pass an order as expeditiously as possible but in no case beyond the period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.6.2011 Avneet