1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP NO. 470 of 2005 Date of decision: 9.9.2008 State of HP …Petitioner Vs Ravinder Kumar & anr ….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 Petitioner: Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy. Advocate General For respondent No.1 None. Per Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has filed this writ petition, under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality of order dated 18.11.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 964/HP/2003, filed by respondent Ravinder Kumar, whereby the writ petitioner, i.e. the State of HP, has been directed to pay teaching allowance to respondent Ravinder Kumar, for the period he remained posted as Principal, Police Training College, Daroh, i.e. 7.11.1994 to 4.6.1998. 2. Admitted facts are that respondent Ravinder Kumar is an IPS Officer allocated to the State of HP. He was posted as Principal, Police Training College, Daroh in the year 1994. He remained posted as such from 7.11.1994 to 4.6.1998. He claimed teaching allowance for the aforesaid period, on the plea that being the Principal of the aforesaid training college, 1 Whether the reports of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. 2 he was supposed to perform teaching job by teaching the classes or by guiding the teachers and instructors in the matter of teaching and training to the trainees. He made representations to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as also to the Government of India, but to no avail. He filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of with a direction to the State Government as also the Union of India to dispose of his representations. Both the governments rejected his representations. He challenged the order of rejection of his representation by filing OA i.e. 964/HP/2003 wherein the impugned order has been passed. The tribunal has directed the petitioner to pay teaching allowance, for the aforesaid period, to the respondent. 3. Order of the Tribunal has been assailed mainly on the ground that the same is contrary to the factual position and that the respondent never performed any teaching job while posted as Principal of the aforesaid training college and, therefore, he was not entitled to teaching allowance. 4. Learned Tribunal has observed that even though respondent may not have done the teaching work, in the strictest sense of word, yet on account of his having given guidelines, directions and instructions to the trainers and the teaching staff, he can be said to have done teaching work and, therefore, he is entitled to teaching allowance. 5. Having heard the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the writ petitioner and gone through the record, we find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Tribunal, especially when we find a communication ( Annexure A-13 ) whereby Director General of Police recommended to the Home department of the State that 3 the respondent was also entitled to teaching allowance, like other teaching staff, because he had been imparting instructions to the teaching staff about the manner and the content of the syllabus of training and teaching to the trainees. Consequently, we hold that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order granted shall stand vacated forthwith. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 9th September, 2008 (sl)