IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7560 of 2008. Decided on: 12.5.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Mohinder Kumar and others. … Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). Though the petition has been filed on as many as six substantive prayers, yet at the time of hearing it is pressed only qua grant of the following reliefs claimed vide para 7 (i), (iv) and (v):- “7 (i). That the impugned Annexure A-6, dated 10th November, 2000 may be quashed and set aside. (iv). That the respondents may be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7200 to the applicants and similarly situated persons w.e.f. the dates of their initial appointment o n the basis of revision of pay scale .w.e.f 1.1.1996 on Punjab pattern and to pay arrears thereof along with interest @ 18% per annum. (v). That the respondents may also be directed to pay the salaries to the applicants and similarly situated persons for the winter/summer breaks from the dates of their initial appointment including winter vacation w.e.f. Ist January, 2001 to 15th February, 2001 and to pay 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 arrears thereof alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide paras 6 (1 to 14) and 6 (15):- “6 (1 to 14). That these paras call for no submissions being a matter of record. However, it is submitted that to get appointment as JBT teacher a candidate must had passed 2 years JBT course. Since the applicants were not having essential qualification, for their posting as JBT teachers, when they were appointed against JBT post on contract basis, however, as per policy decision of the Govt., they had been appointed as JBT teachers on contract basis on the pay scale of Rs. 1200/- fixed plus other allowances admissible on this scale. Apart from this as per the information received from respondent No.3, Distt. Education Officer (Primary), Solan, now designated as Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Solan, the applicants have been regularized against the post of JBT teachers after the completion of 8 years services as contract teachers. Hence, the question of filing the present original application against the Annexures A/5 & A/6 does not arise at all. 6 (15). That this para calls for no submissions being a matter of record. However, it is submitted that as per the clause 5 of the agreement, as per Annexure A/1, nothing can be paid to the applicants contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, which they executed with the respondent-State.” 3 3. In so far as the above prayers vide para 7 (iv) and (v) are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners to this extent is covered under judgment dated 30.11.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No. 6037 of 2008, H.P. Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh versus State of H.P. and another, paras 4 & 6 whereof being relevant are extracted below:- “4. In so far as the claim for salary for the period of vacations is concerned, the matter is no more res integra in view of a Division Bench judgment dated 5.8.2008 of this Court in CWP No. 415 of 2000 and the batch matters, titled Baldev Singh & others versus State of H.P. & others etc. etc., which was challenged by the State in the Hon’ble Supreme court, but admittedly without success, consequent upon which it is stated that the State Government has taken a decision to pay salary to the contractual employees for the period of vacations. It being so, if on facts, members of the petitioner-Union are similarly situate, they shall also be extended the same benefit. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant to the members of the petitioner-Union the revised pay scale of Rs. 4550-7220 by fixing them at the lowest level, i.e. at Rs. 4550 plus allowances as admissible from time to time along with consequential benefits within six months from today, failing which interest at the rate of 9% shall also be payable. Needless to say that salary for the period of vacations shall also be payable to the members of the petitioner-Union in the light of this judgment within the same time as above.” 4 4. In view of the above, if on facts the case of the petitioners for grant of reliefs vide para 7 (iv) and (v) of the petition is covered under the aforesaid judgment dated 30.11.2010 in CWP (T) No. 6037 of 2008 and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment along with consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and that of judgment dated 30.11.2010 in CWP (T) No. 6037 of 2008 by the petitioners/their duly authorized representative, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall also be payable. 5. With regard to the relief claimed vide para 7 (i) of the petition, there will be a direction that subject to the petitioners making a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, along with copy of this judgment to respondents No. 1 & 2/competent authority within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next two months in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sayed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 475, copy of which shall be made available by the petitioners along with the representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them/their duly authorized representative, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 12, 2011. (cr) 5