HARISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have perused the judgment prepared by my esteemed brother Justice V.K. Sharma. I respectfully disagree with my brother Judge and, therefore, deem it appropriate to express my opinion separately.

(2.) THE group of petitions, which we have heard together, essentially form two sets of teachers engaged by the School Management Committees (hereinafter referred to as the SMCs), namely, teachers working in tribal/difficult areas and the other being non tribal/non difficult areas. However, the reliefs claimed in each of these petitions are similar with little variations. The petitioners have essentially sought direction against the State Authorities, inter alia, to pay the salary to the petitioners equal to the salary of the teachers working on the similar posts as regular teachers; to frame appropriate policy for giving training to the petitioners, if required, and to regularise them from the date of their joining as teachers; to release the balance of the salary of the petitioners after calculating the same equal to the regular teachers of the same post and to pay appropriate interest on the said balance salary amount, as may be determined by the Court; and not to dispense with the services of the petitioners and instead allow them to continue as teachers on the post held by them in the concerned School.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the contentious issues, it is worthwhile to mention that during the course of arguments, the counsel appearing for the petitioners have fairly given up the relief claimed by the respective petitioners for regularisation and also regarding equal pay for equal work, as claimed. These reliefs have been given up realizing that none of the petitioners were appointed in selection process followed as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the State Government, nor were holding civil posts. Further, the appointments of the respective petitioners by the concerned SMCs as teachers were on period basis and not as full time teacher as such.