IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5673 of 2008. Decided on 29.06.2010. _____________________________________________________ Dalip Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate vice Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate Generals. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has claimed for the following reliefs: “(a) That in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that stipulation in the order for appointment and terms and conditions incorporated therein and in the agreement to the effect that appointment of the applicant would be only for particular period co-terminus with the termination of academic session and commencement of winter vacation may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Respondent Department may be directed to continue the applicant in service as a result of his appointment till he is replaced by regularly appointed Lecturer in English duly selected by the Public service 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. Commission and only if there is no vacancy available for regular appointee in the entire State of Himachal Pradesh. (b) That while replacing the applicant by regularly selected teachers the respondents may be directed to follow the principle of last come first go. ( c) That the Department may be restrained by giving notional and fictional brake for the applicant and the applicant may be entitled for the salary for this. The respondents may further be directed to give revise pay scale to the applicant as the applicant has got unrevised pay scale.” 2. The reliefs (a) and (b) already stand granted to the petitioner. However, as far as relief No. (c), i.e., salary of the vacation period is concerned, the same is payable to the petitioner as per the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1st September, 2008. 3. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay and release the salary of the vacation period to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Needless to add that the payment of this amount shall abide by the out-come of S.L.P., if any, preferred by the State against the judgment in Baldev Singh’s case. The petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 29, 2010. (bhupender)