IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5039 of 2011 along with connected matters Decided on: July 05, 2011. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No. 5039 of 2011 Kamlesh Kumari vs. State of H.P. and ors. 2. CWP No. 5040 of 2011 Sanjeeta Kumari vs. State of H.P. and ors. 3. CWP No. 5041 of 2011 Rashmi Gupta vs. State of H.P. and ors. 4. CWP No. 5042 of 2011 Sheetal Sharma vs. State of H.P. and ors. 5. CWP No. 5043 of 2011 Anjana Sharma vs. State of H.P. and ors. 6. CWP No. 5044 of 2011 Renu Sharma vs. State of H.P. and ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge . For the petitioner(s): Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) These writ petitions are filed with the identical prayers, one set of such prayers is as under:- “i) That the respondents may be directed to give the vacation salary to the petitioner as is being given to the contract teachers for which the persons appointed on contract basis have been held entitled in the light of judgment passed in Baldev Singh’s case. The respondents may further be directed to pay the arrears along with interest @ 9 p.a. ii) That the respondents may be directed to give the same emoluments with increments at par with the contract teachers and implement the notification contained in Annexure P-1 and directions given vide Annexure P-2.” 2. The petitioners were appointed as Para Teachers. It is submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by the decision of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2880 of 2010 dated 21.10.2010 titled as Dhananjay Saini vs. State of H.P. If that be so, similar treatment shall also be extended to the petitioners herein also, as extended to the petitioner in the above decision, in case the petitioners are also similarly situated, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner. 3. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice Sanjay Karol) Judge July 05, 2011 (rana/c)