IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1535 of 2009 Date of Decision: 31.08.2011 Kamal Singh and others …Petitioners Versus. State of H.P. … Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) 1. The petitioners by means of this writ petition have prayed for the following amongst other reliefs:- i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to make the payment of salary of vacations to the petitioners from the date of their respective appointments mentioned in annexure P-1 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. ii) That the respondent may kindly further be directed to release the arrears in favour of the petitioners by considering them entitled for payment of scale as admissible to the category of JBT teachers (revised from time to time) w.e.f. their initial appointments and to make payment of arrears forthwith after making the deduction of the amount already paid in favour of the petitioners. 2 iii) That the petitioners may be granted seniority from the date of their respective appointments as on contract basis for all purposes. 2. Shri R.K.Gautam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that at this stage the petitioners do not press for relief No.3 and liberty be reserved to them to file a separate petition for grant of this relief. This prayer is accepted because the relief can be granted to the petitioners only if they make the affected parties in the petition. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file separate petition for grant of seniority, if so advised. 3. As far as relief No.1 is concerned, the matter is no longer res integra. This Court in CWP No.415 of 2000 titled as Baldev Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 5.8.2008 held that the teachers employed on contract basis were entitled to grant of salary for the vacation period. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to salary for the vacation period. The petitioners being similarly situated are also entitled to the same benefit and it is directed that the vacation salary be paid to them latest by 31st March, 2012 failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount so payable. 4. As far as relief No.2 is concerned, it is squarely covered by a judgement of a learned Single Judge of 3 this Court in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008 titled as H.P.Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh vs. State of H.P. and another decided on 30.11.2010, wherein the learned Single Judge held as follows:- “5. Office order dated 31.3.1998, Annexure A-3 is the appointment letter of one of the members of the petitioner-Union. However, admittedly the terms and conditions mentioned therein govern each and every member of the Union. It is more than clear on perusal of office order, Annexure A-3 that the members of the petitioner-Union were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 (fixed) plus allowances as admissible under the rules from time to time subject to the rider that they were not entitled for any increments. Thus, as a natural corollary as also on the basis of specific mention in office order, Annexure A-3 the appointees would be entitled for the said pay scale plus allowances “as admissible under the rules from time to time”. Meaning thereby that though members of the petitioner- Union were initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200- 2100 and were fixed at the lowest level of the pay scale, i.e. Rs. 1200, they were entitled for grant of the revised pay scales as applicable from time to time albeit the fact that they were to be fixed at the lowest level of the revised pay scales as admissible from time to time. Once the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 was initially revised to Rs. 4020-6200 and finally to Rs. 4550-7220, members of the petitioner- Union were entitled to be fixed at the lowest level of the finally revised pay scale, i.e. at Rs. 4550 plus allowances admissible from time to time. However, since it was not done and there is no reasonable and plausible explanation coming forth for the same, the members of the petitioner- Union are entitled for the grant of relief prayed for and more so when admittedly similarly situate employees of the State Government appointed on contract basis have already been granted this benefit.” 4 5. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners are entitled to the second relief also which be paid to them latest by 31st March, 2012 failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount so payable. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 31st August, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.