1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No.10241 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Nek Ram .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 21.12.2010 handed out by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 10995 of 2008, Narinder Singh Panta versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, text whereof is as under: “ The pay of the petitioner was enhanced. However, the same was withdrawn vide Annexure A-1, dated 14.10.2003. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 14.10.2003. He has been visited with civil and evil consequences. His pay has been reduced. The petitioner has neither misled nor played any fraud upon the respondents at the time of granting him revised/enhanced pay. 2. The petitioner has also not been paid the salary for winter/summer vacations. The Division Bench of this Court 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 in Baldev Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1st September, 2008 has held that the teachers are entitled to the salary for winter/summer vacations and artificial breaks cannot be given to the teachers to deprive them from the salary of winter/summer vacations. 3. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1, dated 14.10.2003 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for winter/summer vacations, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The petitions stands disposed of. No costs.” 2. In view of the above, if on facts, the petitioner is also a similarly situate person as the petitioner was in the judgment referred to hereinabove, except with regard to payment of vacation salary which is not prayed for in the present petition, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said judgment shall also be extended to him in accordance with law and justice. 3. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 28th December, 2010 (jai)