IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7586 of 2008 Decided on: 30.11.2010 Reeta Jamwal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the present petition is rendered infructuous due to intervening developments. 2. However, it is made clear that as per law laid down by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Lal versus State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 478 and in the judgment rendered by 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 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- September, 2008, the petitioner shall be entitled to the salary for the vacation period. 3. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as infructuous. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 30, 2010 (K. Attri)