Fifteen Years of Teaching Without Full Pay Is “Begaar,” Says Himachal Pradesh High Court, Orders Grant-in-Aid for PTA Drawing Master

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that denying Grant-in-Aid to a Drawing Master who taught in a government school for over 15 years amounted to constitutionally prohibited forced labour, and directed the State to release the difference in emoluments from the date of her engagement.

A Drawing Master who has been teaching Class 6 to Class 10 students at a government senior secondary school in Mandi district since 1 June 2011 — without receiving Grant-in-Aid — has finally secured relief from the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, sitting singly at Shimla, allowed CWP No. 10263 of 2024 filed by Babita Jamwal and directed the State to pay her emoluments under the Grant-in-Aid Rules from the date of her engagement until she continues to serve. The court called the State's conduct a form of begaar — constitutionally prohibited forced labour — and found that the Department had enjoyed her services for over a decade while evading its own statutory obligation to fill the post regularly.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Babita Jamwal was appointed as a Drawing Master on a Parents Teachers Association (PTA) basis by the School Management Committee (SMC) of Government Senior Secondary School, Golwan, Tehsil Lad Bharol, District Mandi, on 1 June 2011. She sought two reliefs by way of writ of mandamus: first, that Grant-in-Aid be extended to her from the due date at par with similarly situated persons under the Grant-in-Aid policy, with interest at 9% per annum; and second, that the respondents be directed not to replace her through a fresh regular, contract, or transfer appointment in breach of the PTA Policy.

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, argued that since 2011 she had been discharging all duties of a Drawing Master — the same duties performed by regularly appointed teachers — and that her continued service without Grant-in-Aid amounted to discrimination against her.

The State's Objections

Additional Advocate General Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, appearing for respondents 1 to 4, raised several defences. He contended that the petitioner's engagement in 2011 was not pursuant to any validly constituted SMC or any selection process. At the time of her engagement, there was no government policy, statutory rule, or policy-based mechanism in place that could have validated the appointment. The arrangement, he argued, was a purely temporary, stop-gap measure to prevent disruption to the school's academic activities and created no entitlement to Grant-in-Aid.

The Additional Advocate General further submitted that the Grant-in-Aid framework under the Parents Teachers Associations Rules of 2006 had already been closed for new engagements with effect from 3 January 2008. Because the petitioner was engaged in 2011 — after that closure — no benefit under the PTA framework could be extended to her. He also contended that the engagement by the SMC was without the consent of the Department, and that the petitioner was not even eligible to be appointed as a Drawing Master given her qualifications.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Goel found the State's position fundamentally inconsistent. The appointment was not in a private school; it was in a government school. It was therefore not plausible that the Department was unaware of the petitioner's appointment by the SMC. If the engagement was contrary to policy or statute, the court asked why the State had allowed her to continue serving for over fifteen years without taking any steps towards termination.

The court noted that the State had not suggested the existence of any other regularly appointed Drawing Master at the school since 2011, which meant the petitioner's services were rendered against an actual sanctioned post. Nor had the Department ever claimed that the quality of education she imparted was inferior to that of a regular appointee, or that her students were held to a different standard in examinations.

On the State's objections regarding the selection process and qualifications, the court was direct: those objections had no relevance for the purpose of adjudicating the petition. The Department had been free to initiate termination proceedings at any time over the past decade and had not done so.

Justice Goel then characterised the broader pattern in pointed terms. The court observed that the Department was, in effect, resorting to begaar — a practice prohibited by the Constitution of India — by taking advantage of unemployment among educated youth and exploiting them through PTA and SMC appointments, while the Government avoided its statutory obligation to fill posts regularly under Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

“Taking advantage of the unemployment amongst the educated youth, they are being exploited, not only by others, but even by the Government,” the court stated, describing the petitioner's situation as “a perfect example” of this practice.

The court was careful to clarify that it was not legitimising the SMC's appointment of the petitioner against the post of Drawing Master. The relief it granted was limited and conditional: so long as the petitioner continues to serve, she must be paid Grant-in-Aid. Withholding it was held to be bad in law.

The Relief Granted and Its Scope

The court directed the respondent department to pay the petitioner emoluments as per the Grant-in-Aid Rules from the date of her engagement until she serves in the school. The mechanism for payment is set out precisely: the respondents must release the difference between the Grant-in-Aid amount to which the petitioner is entitled and the amount she has already received from the SMC. The State is to credit that net difference to her.

The court did not award interest on the arrears, despite the petitioner having sought interest at 9% per annum. The prayer against replacement through fresh appointment or transfer was also not specifically addressed in the operative portion of the order, which disposed of the petition on the Grant-in-Aid question alone.

Outcome

CWP No. 10263 of 2024 was allowed in part on 14 July 2026. The act of the Department in not releasing Grant-in-Aid to Babita Jamwal from the date of her appointment was declared bad in law. The respondent department was directed to release the differential Grant-in-Aid amount to the petitioner, after deducting what she had already received from the SMC, for the entire period of her service in the school. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.