IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.5661 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.9.2010 Prashant Thakur & ors ….Petitioners Vs. State of HP & another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkari Jairath, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG and Mr. J.S. Rana. Assistant Advocate General. The Writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: 1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the impugned letter dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Principal Secretary (Education), to the Government of HP and all further communications in pursuance to this letter. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay the salary for the vacation period to the petitioner for which the persons appointed on contract basis have bee held entitled. 2. It has been fairly submitted for and on behalf of the petitioner that the present writ petition could be disposed of in the 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? light of the judgment dated 20.8.2010 passed in CWP No. 5062/2010 titled Vishal Pangta & others Vs. State of HP & ors, in which also similar issue has been decided. It has been submitted by Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General that identical issue in SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the absence of otherwise instructions, Senior Addl. AG is not in a position to take a different view. 3. Accordingly, the operative part of the judgment, i.e. CWP No. 5062/201 is reproduced here-in-below: “ Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Additional Advocate General and having regard to the factual position, we are of the view that the dispute in this case can be given quietus in case the petitioner gives undertaking that in the event of the Supreme Court deciding in favour of the State, the money so received will be remitted back with 10% interest. Therefore, in the event of the petitioner giving an undertaking that he would refund the amount received by way of vacation salary with 10% interest in the even of the State winning before the Supreme Court, he shall be disbursed the vacation salary within a month of the execution of the undertaking. Needless to say that Annexure P-3 shall not stand in the way of disbursing the salary, as above. 4. Hence, the present writ petition is being disposed of in the light of the above-mentioned judgment passed in CWP No. 5062/2010 dated 20.8.2010, which shall be guideline for the present writ petition. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all the pending application(s) are disposed of. Copy Dasti. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( V.K.Sharma ), J. 13th September, 2008 (sl)