IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 11006 of 2011-A. Decided on: 22nd December, 2011. Sh. Naresh Kumar, son of Sh. Govind, resident of Village Bheri, Post Office Sajao-Piplu, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. presently working as Lecturer (English) Govt. Senior Secondary School Mahari, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary Higher Education to the Govt. of H.P., Shimla-2, H.P. 2. The Director of Higher Education, Govt. of H.P., Shimla, H.P. 3. Deputy Director of Higher Education, Mandi, Distt. Mandi, H.P. 4. Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Mahari, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner. : M/S B.S. Thakur and Jitender P. Ranote, Advocates. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): Petitioner is aggrieved since he is not paid the vacation salary and other benefits as is paid to the contract teachers. In the judgment dated 21.10.2010 in CWP No. 2880 of 2 2010, titled as Dhananjay Saini Vs. State of H.P. and others and connected cases, this Court has held that para teachers are entitled to all the emoluments as are paid to contract teachers, because as per the Government policy, they are to be treated similarly for all purposes. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay the eligible vacation salary, during the entire service period to the petitioner in case the same has not been granted so far in view of the judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh Vs. State of H.P. & others, which has become final, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and copy of the judgment, referred to above. If the amounts are not disbursed as above, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 10% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. 2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 22, 2011. (bhupender/kalpana)