CWP (T) No. 6506 of 2008 24.4.2010 Present: Mr.R.S.Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. The petitioner is restricting his prayer to the release of salary only for vacation period. It is fairly stated at the Bar that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No.144 of 2000, titled as State of H.P. vs. Vijay Singh. In Vijay Singh (supra), the Court has held as under:- “The contention of the State that the employees’ appointed on contract basis are lower in status to the ad hoc employees and therefore, cannot be granted salary during the vacations is totally ill founded. In fact, a contractual employee has been appointed after following some procedure even though the procedure may not be in accordance with rules. His status is better than that of an ad hoc employee who may be appointed without following any procedure whatsoever. The apex Court in 1985 (4) SCC 43, Rattan Lal versus State of Haryana, has clearly held that the persons appointed on ad hoc basis are entitled to salary for the vacations and the State being a model employer cannot follow invidious method of making public appointments from the first day of the academic term and terminate the appointment on the last date of the academic term. The teachers were appointed on contract basis have worked for a period of more than 2 to 3 years and cannot be deprived of the benefit of salary for the vacation period.” As such, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the same relief. The benefits be disbursed within a period of four months from today. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9 per cent per annum. 24th April, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.