IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos. 8883 & 8884 of 2011-I. Decided on: October 18, 2011. 1. CWP No. 8883 of 2011 Nok Singh Thakur & ors. Versus State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 8884 of 2011 Veena Devi & anr. Versus State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners: Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions are filed mainly with the following prayers:- “I. Issue of writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay the salary for the vacation period to the petitioners for which the persons appointed on contract basis have been held entitled as per judgment dated 01-09-2008 passed in CWP No 415 of 2000 titled as ‘Baldev Singh Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and judgment dated 16.06.2011 passed in CWP No. 5006 of 2009 titled Mrs. Ritu Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others in the pay scale of the post, granted and revised at relevant point of time. II. Issue of writ of mandamus to the respondents to pay appropriate Dearness allowance including merger thereof on the pay scale of the post, granted and revised at relevant point of time in terms of the judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008 titled as Nek Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh, judgment dated 30.11.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008 titled as HP Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adayapak Sangh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and judgment dated 31-08-2011 passed in CWP(T) No. 1535/2009 titled as Kamal Singh Versus State.” 2. The first issue pertaining to vacation salary to contract teachers is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Baldev Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1st September, 2008 and the judgment has become final. There will be a direction to 2 the respondents to release eligible vacation salary, during the entire service period, to the petitioners in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition(s) and a copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioners. If the amounts are not disbursed as above, the petitioners will be entitled to interest @ 10% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. 3. So far as the second grievance is concerned, the petitioners have submitted that they are similarly situated as the petitioners in the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008, titled as Nek Ram and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.11.2009. The petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. As and when the same is made, the second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months from the date of the production of copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition(s) and the copy of the judgment, referred to above. 4. As far as the case of the petitioners for the grant of revised pay scale is concerned, the same be considered within a further period of two months after the decision rendered by this Court in LPA No. 5 of 2011. 5. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 18, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol), (vs) Judge.