IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. Nos. 2966, 2997, 2998, 2999, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008 and 3009 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.6.2010 1. CWP No. 2966 of 2010 Suresh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 2. CWP No. 2997 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 3. CWP No. 2998 of 2010 Lalita Chauhan ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 4. CWP No. 2999 of 2010 Kavita ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 5. CWP No. 3000 of 2010 Anita Kumari ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 6. CWP No. 3001 of 2010 Brij Nandan ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 7. CWP No. 3002 of 2010 Manju Bala ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 8. CWP No. 3003 of 2010 Giyan Chand ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 9. CWP No. 3004 of 2010 Pramoj Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 10. CWP No. 3005 of 2010 Rajni Bala ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 11. CWP No. 3006 of 2010 Vidu Bhardwaj ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 12. CWP No. 3007 of 2010 Karnail Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 13. CWP No. 3008 of 2010 Birbal Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 14. CWP No. 3009 of 2010 Sunil Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For Respondents Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. The petitioners in these writ petitions are aggrieved since they are not able to reap the fruits of orders passed by this Court regarding the vacation salary. It appears that the Government had initially decided to grant the benefit but it is seen that the same has been withdrawn as per Annexure P-2 on the ground that the State has decided to take up the matter to the Supreme Court. We are informed that the State has already filed SLP against the order dated 1.9.2008, passed in CWP No.144 of 2000. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the SLP has not even been registered before the Apex Court and the petitioners seek the benefit of order dated 1.9.2008, which the State initially had decided to implement. Apparently, the non-implementation is only on account of their decision to move the Supreme Court. It is also submitted that since the SLP has not even been admitted and since there is no interim order, there is no justification in not granting the benefit to the petitioners at least making it subject to the outcome of the matter now pending before the Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners are undertaking that they will refund the amount in case the Supreme Court takes a decision in favour of the State. 3. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Additional Advocate General and having regard to the factual position, we are of the view that the dispute in this case can be given quietus in case the petitioners give undertaking that in the event of the Supreme Court deciding in favour of the State, the money so received will be remitted back with 10% interest. Therefore, in the event of the petitioners giving undertaking that they would refund the amount received by way of vacation salary with 10% interest in the event of the State winning before the Supreme Court, they shall be disbursed the vacation salary within a month of the execution of the undertaking. Needless to say that Annexure P-2 shall not stand in the way of disbursing the salary, as above. 4. All the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 15th June, 2010(K/HL) ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), Judge