IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1942 of 2011 & connected matters. Decided on: April 5, 2011. 1. CWP No. 1942 of 2011 Balbinder Singh Versus State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 1944 of 2011 Mohammad Salim Versus State of H.P. & ors. 3. CWP No. 1945 of 2011 Jitender Kumar Versus State of H.P. & ors. 4. CWP No. 1948 of 2011 Trilok Chand Versus State of H.P. & ors. 5. CWP No. 1949 of 2011 Rajesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. & ors. 6. CWP No. 1950 of 2011 Bharat Bhushan Versus State of H.P. & ors. 7. CWP No. 1952 of 2011 Ashwani Kumar Versus State of H.P. & ors. 8. CWP No. 1953 of 2011 Suman Kumar Versus State of H.P. & ors. 9. CWP No. 1954 of 2011 Chanchla Devi Versus State of H.P. & ors. 10. CWP No. 1955 of 2011 Narender Kumar Versus State of H.P. & ors. 11. CWP No. 1956 of 2011 Pawan Kumar Versus State of H.P. & ors. 12. CWP No. 1957 of 2011 Vijay Kumar Versus State of H.P. & ors. 13. CWP No. 1958 of 2011 Des Raj Versus State of H.P. & ors. 2 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate, vice counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG for respondents-state. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners claim the benefit of contract service for the purpose of increment, pension and vacation salary. As far as the increment and pension are concerned, this Court has already held that contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service and it is for the government to consider the matter. As far as the vacation salary is concerned, the matter is now covered in favour of the petitioners by the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh versus State of H.P. & Others. The petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation 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. As and when the same is made, the second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition (s) by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent/competent authority. 2. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. April 5, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), (karan/vs) Judge.