IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8659 of 2008 Date of decision: 08.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(a) and (b): “7(a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the deputation allowance to the applicant with effect from 21.11.2000 to 29.8.2001, the period for which he has served in Govt. High School, Tingret, Distt. Lauhal and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh on deputation alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. (b) That the respondents further be directed to release the salary to the applicant for the months of July and August, 2001 which has yet not been paid to the applicant alongwith interest at the rate 12%” 2. In reply, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken vide paras 3 and 6(v): 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... “3. That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Tribunal due to the fact that the applicant was initially appointed as TGT(N/M) on contract basis in Govt. Middle School Chamrat(L & S) on 14th September, 1995. the applicant was adjusted w.e.f. 21.11.2000 to 29.8.2001 at the then Govt. High School Tingret. The adjustment order was not a formal written order by the then DEO, it was a simply internal adjustment. It is further submitted that the applicant is not entitled for deputation allowance being a contract appointee and the services of the applicant have been regularised w.e.f. 01.01.2005 as per this Office order No. EDN-H(2)-34/2005 – contract dated 21.6.2006. Hence, the present original application filed by the applicant being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice. 6(v) That in reply to this para it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled for the salary of summer vacation period w.e.f. July 2001 to August 2001 in the light of the stay in stay in CWP No. 144/2000 titled State of H.P. vs/ Vijay Kumar & Ors. It is further submitted that applicant is not entitled for deputation allowance being a contract appointee. The applicant has no grounds to file the present original application:” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before the first respondent/competent authority within a period of one month from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the said respondent/competent authority shall decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 8th December, 2010 (virender)