IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 5356 & 5357 of 2011. Decided on: 19th July, 2011. 1. CWP No. 5356 of 2011. Kiran Sharma. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 2. CWP No. 5357 of 2011. Uttra Chauhan. Vs. State of H.p. & another. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Surender Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners claim the benefit of contract service followed by regular service for the purpose of fixation of pay, increments and also the vacation salary. 2. So far as the vacation salary is concerned, the matter is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.415 of 2000, titled as Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and the judgment has become final. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the due and admissible vacation salary, during the entire service period, to the petitioners in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment, referred to 2 above. If the amounts are not disbursed as above, the petitioners will be entitled to interest @ 10% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. 3. So far as the claim for counting the period of contract service followed by regular service for the purpose of pay fixation and increments is concerned, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No.36 of 2010, Sita Ram vs. State. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. 5. The respondent concerned will examine the matter, after verifying the facts, in the light of the judgment in Sita Ram’s case referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copies of the judgment, referred to above. 6. The writ petition is disposed of, as above, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 19th July, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr/pankaj) Judge. 3