The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State cannot exploit the services of teachers engaged in government schools for years without extending the benefits due to them, observing that such conduct amounts to "begaar" prohibited by the Constitution.

While directing the release of Grant-in-Aid to a Drawing Master who had been serving since 2011, the Court remarked that the Government was taking advantage of educated unemployed youth by extracting their services without according them the financial benefits they were entitled to.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "All the above mentioned facts, demonstrate that the Department, in fact, is resorting to 'Begaar', which otherwise is prohibited by the Constitution of India. Taking advantage of the unemployment amongst the educated youth, they are being exploited, not only by others, but even by the Government and present one is also a perfect example of the same."

Background:

The petitioner was appointed as a Drawing Master on 1 June 2011 by the School Management Committee of Government Senior Secondary School, Golwan, District Mandi. She contended that although she had continuously discharged the duties of a Drawing Master and taught students from Classes VI to X, the State had refused to extend the benefit of Grant-in-Aid under the PTA Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006. She argued that she was performing the same duties as a regular Drawing Master but was being subjected to discriminatory treatment.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the appointment had not been made through a valid selection process or a duly constituted School Management Committee. It further argued that the Grant-in-Aid scheme had been discontinued for fresh engagements after 3 January 2008 and that the petitioner was not even eligible for appointment as a Drawing Master at the relevant time.

The High Court held that the petitioner had been serving as a Drawing Master in a government school since 2011 with the Department's knowledge. If her appointment was irregular, the authorities ought to have acted against it instead of continuing to utilise her services for nearly fifteen years while denying her Grant-in-Aid.

The Court also noted that there was no allegation that the quality of education imparted by the petitioner was inferior to that of a regular teacher.

The Court further remarked that the Government was shirking its obligation to fill teaching posts through regular recruitment, forcing educated youth to continue working under insecure arrangements.

Clarifying that it was not validating the petitioner's appointment, the Court nevertheless held that the State could not continue to take her services while denying her Grant-in-Aid. It, therefore, directed the Department to release Grant-in-Aid from the date of her engagement after adjusting the amount already paid by the School Management Committee.

Case Name: Babita Jamwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No.10263 of 2024

Date of Decision: 14.07.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order