IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA L.P.A. No. 37 of 2004 Date of decision: 17.11.2008 The State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Vs. Kailash Gupta and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents No. 1 to 11: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta and Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocates. For respondents No. 12 & 13: Mr. N.K.Sood, Advocate Per Surjit Singh,J.(Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 16th October, 2003 of the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 11, who are teachers in Arya Girls Senior Secondary School, Shimla, seeking parity of pay, with their counterparts working in Government Schools, has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the present appellants, i.e. State of Himachal 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Pradesh, and Director (Education) to pay grant-in-aid equivalent to 95% of the salary and allowances of teachers working in Government Schools, for disbursement to respondents No. 1 to 11. 2. Admitted facts are as follows. Respondent No. 2 Arya Girls Senior Secondary School was earlier upto 10th standard and its name was Arya Girls High School. It was one of the 144 recognized and affiliated schools, which were entitled to grant-in-aid, equivalent to 95% of the salary and allowances of their teachers. During the academic session of 1993-94, the school was upgraded. Two more classes, i.e. 11th and 12th were added to the already existing 10 classes and its name was changed to Arya Girls Senior Secondary school. The management of the school applied to the Director (Education) for grant-in-aid, equivalent to the salary and allowances of respondents No. 1 to 11, who had been employed for teaching 11th and 12th classes. Request of the management was turned down by the Director, vide letter dated 1.8.1997 (Annexure PG). Consequently, the management did not pay to respondents No. 1 to 11 salary and allowances equivalent to their counter parts in government schools. They then filed a writ petition challenging the decision of respondent No. 2, contained in Annexure PG, refusing to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid for payment of their salaries. 3 4. Appellants, who were impleaded as respondents, took the plea that though they had permitted the addition of two classes to the school, yet it was after an undertaking given by the management of the school in the form of affidavit that extra grant-in-aid will not be claimed in respect of the teachers to be employed for teaching 11th and 12th classes. 5. The plea raised by the appellants did not find favour with the learned Single Judge, who placing reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Rajni Vali (Mrs.) and others (2000) 2 SCC 42, held that respondents No. 1 to 11 were entitled to the same salary as their counter parts in other schools and that the appellants were under obligation to pay grant-in-aid equivalent to 95% of the salary and allowances. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. The judgment, upon which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance, to allow the writ petition, i.e. Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Rajni Vali (Mrs.) and others (2000) 2 SCC 42, applies to the facts of the present case on all fours. In that case, as in the present case, initially the school upto high school level had been recognized by the Chandigarh Administration and grant-in-aid equivalent to 95% of the salary and other allowances of the teachers was paid by the Chandigarh Administration. Later on, two more 4 classes, i.e. 11th and 12th were added to the school and its level was raised to Senior Secondary School. The classes had been added after obtaining permission from Chandigarh Administration. Permission was conditional, the condition being that no additional grant-in-aid would be asked for in respect of the salary of the teachers to be employed for two additional classes. The teachers, who were employed for the additional classes, demanded salary on par with their counter parts in other schools. When their demand was not met, they filed writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was approached by the Chandigarh Administration through S.L.P. Dismissing the S.L.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration and it is a Constitutional mandate that State shall ensure proper education to the students, on whom the future of the society depends. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant has stated that when the management had filed an affidavit that they would not be claiming any extra grant-in-aid, learned Single Judge ought not have allowed the writ petition. The submission has been noticed only to be rejected. The affidavit filed by the management does not bind the teachers, i.e. respondents No. 1 to 11, who were supposedly 5 employed after the affidavit was filed. Otherwise also, there cannot be any estoppel against law and, therefore, the affidavit does not bind anybody, even the management. Also we have been told that the affidavit had not been filed by the management voluntarily, but it was on the asking of the appellants because otherwise they were reluctant to accord permission for addition of classes. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), J. November 17, 2008(K) ( Surjit Singh ), J.