IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 56 of 2011 State of Uttarakhand & others. ………. Appellants Versus Yashwant Singh Negi & others. ..………. Respondents Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / appellants. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Delay Condonation Application No. 2098 of 2011: Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Being satisfied with the reasons furnished for the delay in preferring the appeal, we condone the delay. The Application is, accordingly, allowed. Special Appeal No. 56 of 2011: By consent of the parties, appeal is taken up for hearing on its merits. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 approached this Court by filing a writ petition contending that they are entitled to honorarium as per the Government Orders dated 20th September, 2003 and 24th October, 2003. Government Order dated 20th September, 2003 entitled PTA Teachers, teaching six periods per day, an honorarium of ` 4,000/- per month to be paid by the Government. On 24th October, 2003, Government Order dated 20th September, 2003 was modified and, thereby, the requirement of teaching six periods per day was done away with. On 15th September, 2004, the Director, School Education, issued a clarificatory letter and, thereby, made it clear that honorarium, in terms of the afore-mentioned Government Orders, shall only be paid to those PTA Teachers, who have been appointed prior to 5th September, 2003. 2 3. PTA Teachers mean those teachers, who have been appointed by the Parent Teachers’ Association. In relation to such appointed teachers, Government had no connection until before 20th September, 2003. While the Government Order dated 20th September, 2003 was issued, either by the said order or by any other order, the Government or anyone on behalf of the Government did not ask the colleges to indicate whether they have any PTA Teacher working in their colleges. While the Government Order dated 20th September, 2003 was altered by the Government Order dated 24th October, 2003, even at that stage, the Government or anyone on behalf of the Government did not take any step to call upon the colleges to furnish informations pertaining to engagement of PTA Teachers in the colleges. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were appointed as PTA Teachers in the year 1999. This fact was not disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the State to the writ petition. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / writ petitioners contended that they have the basic required eligibility for being appointed as such teachers. Such assertion too was not denied or disputed in the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition, it was contended by the respondents therein that the college, where the writ petitioners were engaged, did not inform the Government on or before 10th February, 2004 that the writ petitioners have been engaged as PTA Teachers. It was not disputed, however, that the college informed the respondents that the writ petitioners stand engaged by the college as PTA Teachers by a letter dated 17th February, 2004, which was received by the respondents on 19th February, 2004. The respondents could not bring to the notice of the writ court that by any means, the college in question was ever communicated that on or before 10th February, 2004 the college must inform the Government as regards engagement of PTA Teachers by the college. 5. In the circumstances, the writ petition was allowed. In the appeal, it is the contention of the appellants that in respect of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / writ petitioners, there is no budgetary provision and, for that purpose, 3 appellants have drawn our attention to the letter dated 15th September, 2004, written by Director, School Education, to all District Education Officers. In that, it has been stated that in the second session of the legislative assembly, provision had been made for 548 such teachers and that, on 20th February, 2004, existence of additional 318 PTA Teachers was ascertained and, accordingly, budgetary provision was made by the legislative assembly for 866 teachers. In that, it has been specifically mentioned that the strength of additional 318 PTA Teachers was obtained on 20th February, 2004. That being the situation, it must be deemed, in the facts of this case, that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / writ petitioners were counted when additional 318 teachers were counted on 20th February, 2004, unless contrary is shown, which has not been attempted to be shown. We, accordingly, do not accept the contention of the appellants that there is no budgetary provision for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / writ petitioners. 6. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 15.06.2011 15.06.2011 G