State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma and Mr. Rupinder Singh, Addl. Advocate Generals with Ms. Parul Negi, Dy. Advocate General. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral). By medium of this petition, the petitioner has claimed the following substantive reliefs: (i) That further writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to release the grant in aid in favour of petitioner from the date the grant in aid Rules were notified and such grant in aid were released to the similarly situated persons along with interest as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and the arrears be paid within a reasonable period. (ii) That further writ in the nature of mandamus may further kindly be issued directing the respondents to release the grant in aid regularly in future in favour of the petitioner. 2. In nutshell the case of the petitioner is that on 30.8.2005, she was appointed as Drawing Teacher by the Mother Teacher Association (MTA). Vide resolution No. 3 dated 5.5.2008 her Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on 15/04/2017 17:56:39 :::HCHP ...2... appointment was reendorsed by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and thereafter on 10.9.2009 the Headmaster of the concerned . school recommended her case for releasing the grant in aid in her favour since the petitioner had been working prior to coming into force the grant in aid Rules. 3. In reply to the petitioner, it was averred that appointment of the petitioner made by the MTA was without conducting the interviews. It was further contended that after joining the petitioner on 1.9.2005 herself gave in writing that she was not interested to receive any payment and would be working only to gain experience. On 5.5.2008, P.T.A. was formed in the school and vide resolution No. 2 it decided to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.1000/ out of PTA fund and school also gave its consent regarding engagement of the petitioner, which services are continuing till date. 4. During the course of hearing, the petitioner had pointed out that she had in fact been paid the grant in aid with effect from April 2010 to March 2013 and therefore, was entitled to the grant in aid for the period prior to April 2010 and subsequent to March 2013. The respondents sought time to verify these facts and thereafter placed on record the instructions dated 13.11.2014, which read thus: "In this regard it is intimated that the petitioner was engaged as Drawing Master on honorary basis (without pay) by the MTA on 30.8.2005 of the concerned institution vide resolution No.3. On 5.5.2008 the PTA of the concerned school had started paying her Rs.1000/ per month out of PTA fund. It is pertinent to submit here that the petitioner was not engaged under GIA Rules, 2006 and was engaged much earlier than the commencement of these Rules i.e. in the year 2005. Hence the Grant in aid has not been released in her favour. But the same was released in her favour inadvertently by the Principal/DDO of the concerned institution for the period ::: Downloaded on 15/04/2