Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
Uttaranchal High Court
Smt. Gautam Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 15 September, 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

WPSS No. 1629 of 2006

Smt. Gautam Chauhan ........Petitioner.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ....Respondents.

Mr. Kamlesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State / respondent no. 1 & 2. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 & 4.

27th August, 2008

Hon'ble P.C. Verma, J.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay the honorarium at the rate of Rs. 4000/- to the petitioner in accordance with the Govt. Order dated 15.9.2004.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Parents Teacher Association Teacher (hereinafter referred to as PTA teacher) on 7.7.2003 in the Institution of respondent no. 3, which according to the petitioner, is an aided institution and is managed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar. On 22nd May, 2004, a Govt. Order was issued whereby the restriction of Rs. 25/- per lecture was relaxed and a direction was given to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to all the PTA teachers similar to the petitioner. Thereafter, the vide Govt. Order dated 15th September, 2004, it was provided that the PTA teacher working in the aided private schools shall be paid honorarium at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- by the Government. It was further provided that person appointed as PTA 2

teachers after 5.9.2004 will not be paid by the Government. When the petitioner was not paid honorarium according to the Govt. Orders, she moved a representation to respondent no. 2, but to no avail.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State, wherein it has been stated that vide Govt. Order No. 647/Intermediate/2003 Intermediate Education Section Dehradun dt. 20/09/2003, G.O. No. 366/XXIV-2/2004 dt. 22nd May, 2004 and G.O. No. 856/Inter/2003 dt. 24th October, 2003, have allotted honorarium of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the working teachers on dt. 05/09/2003 were selected/engaged by the concerned Parent Teachers Association of the non-governmental aided intermediate colleges. It has further been submitted that pursuant to Govt. Orders, the total number of P.T.A. teacher of Haridwar District were approved and paid honorarium from Govt. Exchequer, but the Management of the Institution / College has not produced or submitted the proposal for payment of said honorarium to the petitioner in pursuance of the Govt. Orders. It has further been submitted that appointment of the petitioner under P.T.A. arrangement was submitted for approval of the department, therefore, the manager of the College has published the advertisement for substantive vacant 14 posts of Assistant Teachers in the College in the daily newspaper Amar Ujala dt. 27/8/2006. It has further been submitted in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that the selection process of all 14 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers have been completed, against which 12 Assistant Teachers have already joined, rest of two posts in which selection process was deferred due to absence of subject specialists.

3

4. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent no. 4, wherein in paragraph 4, it has been stated that the proposal for the appointment of petitioner was not according to the provisions of "Niyukti Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam", therefore, same was not sent to the office of Manager by the School Management for sanction of Rs. 4,000/-. It has further been submitted that the appointment of the petitioner has not been made under the provisions of Uttarakhand / U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam-1921 therefore, there is no occasion to sanction honorarium in purview of G.O. dated 19.10.2005. It has further been submitted that the selection process of all 14 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers have been completed out of which 12 Assistant Teachers have already joined and selection of rest two posts have been deferred due to absence of subject specialist. It has further been stated that the petitioner did not bring her case in notice of authorities concerned.

5. In view of the aforesaid, since the appointment of the petitioner was not according to the provisions of "Niyukti Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, therefore, her name was not sent to the office of Manager by the School Management for sanction of Rs. 4,000/-. The petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence, whereby it can be established that her appointment was according to the relevant rules.

6. For the reasons recorded above, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to move a representation regarding the honorarium enclosing therein relevant G.O.s before the authority concerned. If such a representation is filed, the same shall be decided 4

within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

7. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(P.C. Verma, J.)

27.8.2008

Rathour