IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 5481 of 2008. Decided on: 04.08.2010. __________________________________________________________ Brahm Swarup. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his salary has been withheld by the respondents on the ground that he has not handed over the charge. In case the petitioner had not handed over the charge, proper inquiry could have been instituted against the petitioner. In the present case no regular inquiry has been held against the petitioner and the salary with effect from August, 1997 to September, 1997 has been withheld. The salary is a property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be withheld save and except in accordance with law. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner from August 1997 to September, 1997 within a period of ten weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 04, 2010. (sck).