1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.26/2010 Hamera Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 05-02-2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. A.K. Choudhary, for the appellants. The appellants-petitioners were engaged as “Vidhyarthi Mitra” on contract basis; they approached this Court by filing a writ petition with other incumbents stating the grievance, inter alia, that their services would not be continued after summer break. It appears that the engagement of the appellants-petitioners continued during the pendency of the litigation pursuant to the orders passed by the Court. Thereafter, a batch of petitions was decided at Jaipur Bench of this Court on 8.5.2009 with certain directions essentially to the effect that the respondents shall consider the cases of appellants-petitioners for continuation in service until the regular selections were made but with the observations that the appellants-petitioners would not be entitled for salary during the period of vacations i.e., when the schools remain closed. Following the said decision, a batch of writ petitions including the one preferred by the appellants-petitioners, was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.5.2009 in the same terms and with the same directions. The appellants-petitioners have the grievance against denial of salary for summer vacations; and it has been vehemently argued that non-payment of the salary for the summer vacation is nothing but 2 exploitation of the appellants-petitioners who had no other option except to accept the terms and conditions of the contract. We take notice of the fact that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in which one of us (Hon'ble the Chief Justice Jagdish Bhalla) was a party, has already considered and rejected the claim of salary for summer vacations in relation to similarity situated persons. The said decision in the case of Rajendra Kumar Saini & 126 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. is reported in 2010(1)WLC (Raj.)171. We do not find any ground to differ from the view already expressed by the co-ordinate Bench. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [DINESH MAHESHWARI],J. [JAGDISH BHALLA], CJ. Praveen