1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11107 of 2011-A Decided on: 21.12.2011 Kusum Sharma, D/o Sh. Harish Chander, R/o House No. 138/2 (Near Water Tank), Purani Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. ....Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. The Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 3. Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers:- 2 “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the salary for the vacation period to the petitioner with effect from 16.07.1999 to 25.02.2009 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to extend the benefit of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Nek Ram & others versus State of H.P. & others, C.W. P. (T). No. 14232/2008, decided on 17.11.2009 to the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits.” 2. The first issue pertaining to vacation salary to contract teachers is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Baldev Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1st September, 2008 and the judgment has become final. There will be a direction to the respondents to release eligible vacation salary, during the entire service period to the petitioner in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioner. If the amounts are not disbursed, as above, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 10% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. 3 3. So far as the second grievance is concerned, the petitioner has submitted that she is similarly situated as the petitioners in the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008, titled as Nek Ram and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.11.2009. The petitioner submits that she would file an appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for her to do so. As and when the same is filed, the second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months from the date of the production of copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment, referred to above. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 21, 2011 (Justice Rajiv Sharma) (sck/hl) Judge.