IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No.: 90 of 2009. Decided on: 21.02.2011. __________________________________________________________ Purna Nand Sharma. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). Petitioner confines his relief only to the non-payment of salary with effect from May, 2006 to November, 2006. It has come in the reply filed by the respondent-State that the petitioner has been paid this amount by way of Actual Pay Receipt (APR), but he has refused to receive the same on the pretext that he will take his full amount of salary. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents now to pay and release to the petitioner the salary with effect from May, 2006 to November, 2006. The amount which has already been paid to petitioner’s wife is not to be paid to the petitioner since he has failed to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - maintain her. The amount due be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment. 2. In view of the above discussion, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. February 21, 2011. (sck).