IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 8237 of 2008. Decided on 6th December, 2010. Rajesh Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is rendered infructuous as far as other reliefs are concerned, except salary for the vacation period. He further submits that his client had worked and has been regularized after the interim order dated 26.02.2002, passed by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, if the petitioner had worked during this period, as claimed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, he is entitled for the salary of vacation period in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1st September, 2008. 2. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release and pay the salary of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - vacation period to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 06, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 -