State Authorities cannot adopt a "pick-and-choose" policy among similarly situated PTA teachers regarding honorarium eligibility.

The petitioners were engaged as Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Teachers in Government-aided institutions starting in 2015, receiving a nominal honorarium from the PTA

Under a Government Policy dated 21.12.2016, PTA teachers engaged before a specific cutoff date were entitled to receive honorarium from the State exchequer

The Chief Education Officer (CEO), Pauri, rejected the petitioners' claims on 11.12.2017, citing that they had not received their PTA honorarium via cheque before 30.06.2016

The petitioners contended that 26 similarly situated teachers, who also received cash payments rather than cheques before the cutoff date, were granted the benefit of the policy

The petitioners challenged this "pick-and-choose" policy as discriminatory

1. Whether the respondents can transition PTA teachers to the State exchequer payroll if they received honorarium in cash rather than by cheque prior to the cutoff date

2. Whether the denial of benefits to the petitioners, while granting them to similarly situated teachers, constitutes an arbitrary "pick-and-choose" policy in violation of Article 14

The court's proceedings were governed by the Government Orders dated 21.12.2016 and 03.01.2017, which established the eligibility criteria for PTA teachers to receive State-funded honorarium

The court further relied on the constitutional principle of equality (Article 14), which prohibits the State from adopting a "pick-and-choose" policy among members of the same class of persons

The petitioners provided evidence through a supplementary affidavit showing that the CEO, Pauri Garhwal, had issued several orders in 2022 granting benefits to other PTA teachers who, like the petitioners, received honorarium in cash prior to 30.06.2016

The court noted the petitioners' argument that if the State had accepted affidavits from Managers or Principals to verify the cash payments of other teachers, the same standard should apply to the petitioners

The State Counsel conceded that the petitioners could approach the competent authority to demonstrate this parity

The court reasoned that the matter required a factual determination by the CEO to ensure that the petitioners were not being subjected to hostle discrimination if they indeed belonged to the same class as the beneficiaries

The court directed the competent authority to examine the claim of similarity between the petitioners and those already granted benefits and to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks

The court specifically allowed the petitioners to submit personal affidavits and affidavits from school Managers/Principals as evidence of their service and payment history