IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos. 1643, 1652, 1667 and 1691 of 2011 Decided on: March 31, 2011. 1. CWP No. 1643 of 2011 Madhubala Vs. State of H.P. and ors. 2. CWP No. 1652 of 2011 Saroj Gupta Vs. State of H.P. and ors. 3. CWP No. 1667 of 2011 Surinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and ors. 4. CWP No. 1691 of 2011 Anil Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners claim the benefit of contract service for the purpose of increment and vacation salary. As far as the increment and pension is concerned, this Court has already held that contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service and it is for the government to consider the matter. As far as the vacation salary is concerned, the matter is now covered in favour of the petitioners by the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh versus State of H.P. & Others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 293. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the second respondent/competent authority to release the vacation salary to the petitioners in case the same has not been 2 granted to them so far. As far as the other grievances are concerned, it will be open to them to approach the first respondent. 2. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. March 31, 2011. ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (BSS/pankaj) Judge.