Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/9692/2013 of HEM RAJ Vs STATE OF HP on 30 December 2013
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9692 of 2013-J Date of decision: 30.12.2013 Sh. Hem Raj & Another …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA
CWP No. 9692 of 2013-J
Date of decision: 30.12.2013
Sh. Hem Raj & Another
…Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1]No Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral).
The entitlement of the petitioners to the vacation salary is in issue in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, in CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1.9.2008 and connected matters. Also this Court, on 9.1.2012 had passed following directionsin CWP No. 11920 of 2011-C, titled as Vijay Kumar Chandel Vs. State of H.P. and others with read as under:- Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No.
“This issue pertaining to vacation salary to contract teachers is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh & others versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1[st] September, 2008 and the judgment has become final. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release eligible vacation salary, during the entire service period, to the petitioner in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner. If the amounts are not disbursed, as above, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 10% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same.”
3. As such, present petitioners being similarly situated, petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to disburse the vacation salary for the undisputed period, if not already disbursed to the petitioners, as per their entitlement. Needful be positively done within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order by the petitioners.
With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of, as also the pending application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol) Judge.
30[th] December, 2013
(KRS)
(V.K. Sharma), Judge.