IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4945 of 2010 Decided on: 16.11.2010 Kulbhushan Rehalia …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The petitioner submits that he has completed eight years service as on 20th November, 2005. It is seen from Annexure-PD communication from the Government dated 9th June, 2005 that those teachers who have completed eight years of service on contract basis are entitled for regularization, in case of those contract teachers who have completed 8 years of service as on 31.12.2004 and who had been completing 8 years of service as on 31.12.2005. It appears that in the list attached with Annexure PD, name of the petitioner was left out. Since as per the policy, the teachers who completed 8 years service as on that date, were liable to be regularized, in case the petitioner had continuous service for 8 years as on 31.12.2004 or 31.12.2005, 2 the petitioner was liable to be regularized in service. Despite direction by this Court, this crucial aspect was not adverted to in the impugned order Annexure PG dated 24th May, 2010. The said order is set aside. In case the petitioner has completed 8 years of service on contract basis prior to 31.12.2005, the petitioner shall also be regularized in service on the date of completion of service as above in the light of the policy decision taken by the Government on 9th June, 2005, which is reflected in Annexure PD order dated 9th June, 2005. This shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of writ petition by the petitioner. As far as salary of vacation period is concerned, in case the petitioner submits an undertaking to the effect that in case the matter pending before the Supreme Court is decided against the petitioner, the vacation salary that is being paid to the petitioner can be recovered with interest at the rate of 10%, the vacation salary shall also be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of execution of the agreement. 2. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja ), November 16, 2010 Judge (bss/vt) 3