IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8191 of 2011 Decided on: 21st September, 2011. Vikram Gautam & anr. Vs. State of H.P. & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- I. Issue of writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay the salary for the vacation period to the petitioners for which the persons appointed on contract basis have been held entitled as per judgment dated 1.9.2008 passed in CWP No. 415 of 2000 titled as ‘Baldev Singh Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and judgment dated 16.06.2011 passed in CWP No. 5006 of 2009 titled Mrs Ritu Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. II. Issue of writ of mandamus to the respondents to pay appropriate Dearness allowance including merger thereof on the pay scale of the post granted and revised at relevant point of time in terms of the judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed 2 in CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008 titled as Nek Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh, judgment dated 30.11.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008 titled as HP Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and judgment dated 31.-8-2011 passed in CWP(T) No. 1535/2009 titled as Kamlal Singh Versus State.” 2. The first issue pertaining to vacation salary to contract teachers is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Baldev Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1st September, 2008 and the judgment has become final. There will be a direction to the respondents to release eligible vacation salary, during the entire service period, to the petitioners in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioners. 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 second grievance is concerned, the petitioners have submitted that they are similarly situated as the petitioners in the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008, titled Nek Ram and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.11.2009, CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008, titled as H.P. Rajkiya 3 Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 30.11.2010 and CWP(T) No. 1535/2009, titled as Kamal Singh and others Versus State of H.P., decided on 31.8.2011. It is further submitted that the decision in Nek Ram’s case (supra) has also been implemented. In case the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in the judgments, referred to above, similar treatment shall be given to the petitioners herein also, after verifying the facts, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition by the petitioners before the second respondent/competent authority. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 21st September, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (kck) Judge.