IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5254 of 2011 and connected matters. Decided on 11.07.2011. 1. CWP No. 5254 of 2011 Randhir Singh vs. State of H.P. and another 2. CWP No. 5255 of 2011 Sukhveer Singh vs. State of H.P. and another 3. CWP No. 5256 of 2011 Khem Dutt Sharma vs. State of H.P. and another 4. CWP No. 5258 of 2011 Yajuvender Kant vs. State of H.P. and another 5. CWP No. 5259 of 2011 Amit Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another 6. CWP No. 5260 of 2011 Sagar Singh vs. State of H.P. and another 7. CWP No. 5261 of 2011 Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. and another 8. CWP No. 5262 of 2011 Ms Promil vs. State of H.P. and another 9. CWP No. 5263 of 2011 Lal Chand vs. State of H.P. and another 10. CWP No. 5264 of 2011 Savita Sharma vs. State of H.P. and another ____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. 2 Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice (oral). The petitioners are para teachers. They are aggrieved since they are not paid the vacation salary and other benefits as are paid to the contract teachers. In the judgment dated 21.10.2010, in CWP No. 2880 of 2010 titled as Dhananjay Saini versus State of H.P. & ors., and connected cases, this Court has held that para teachers are entitled to all the emoluments as are paid to contract teachers, because as per the Government policy, they are to be treated similarly for all purposes. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to pay the eligible vacation salary, during the entire service period, to the petitioners in case the same has not been granted so far in view of the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 415 of 2000, titled as Baldev Singh versus State of H.P. & ors, which has become final, within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition(s) and copy of the judgment, referred to above. If the amounts are not disbursed as above, the petitioners will be entitled to interest @ 10% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. 2. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge. July 11, 2011 (LSP/hl)