IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 6904 & 6906 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.12.2010. CWP No. 6904 of 2010 Jitender Singh Versus State of H.P. and ors. CWP No. 6906 of 2010 Prakash Chand Versus State of H.P. and ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.L. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) According to the petitioners their case is covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 5586 of 2010, titled Jagat Ram vs. State of H.P. decided on 17.9.2010, text of which reads as follows:- “In this petition, the petitioner has raised two contentions; (1) he is entitled for vacation salary and (2) he is also entitled for counting the service rendered by him on contract basis for the purpose of increments, pension etc.. As far as the latter prayer is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file appropriate representation before the second respondent. As far as the first issue is concerned, this Court has already held in several judgments that it will be open to the petitioners to execute bonds in the event of the matter now pending before the Supreme Court is allowed, the petitioners will refund the amount granted to them with 10% interest. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: 2. In the event of the petitioner executing bond to the effect that he will refund the amount with 10% interest in the event of the matter now pending before the Supreme Court against the …2… judgment of this Court in the case of vacation salary is allowed, he would refund the amount of vacation salary with 10% interest, the vacation salary be disbursed to him within a period of three months from the date of execution of the bond by the petitioner. 3. As far as the grievance regarding the counting of service rendered during the contract period followed by regular service for the purpose of increments and pension is concerned, the petitioner may file appropriate representation before the first respondent, in which case, the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent within another four months. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.” 2. Since the petitioners, herein, claim that they are also similarly situated persons, therefore, there will be a direction to first respondent to examine the case of the petitioners in light of the judgement extracted above and take appropriate action in accordance with law within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgement alongwith a copy of the writ petition. 3. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 14, 2010. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (BSS/pankaj) Judge.