IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No.10225 of 2008. Date of decision: 31.12.2010 Kavita Sood …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.Ramesh Thakur, Dy.Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that her salary for the months of December, 2002, January, 2003 and February, 2003 be released in her favour. 2. The stand of the State is that the petitioner was transferred and was to replace one Sh.Suresh Awasthy who managed to obtain a stay order in Original Application No.3162 of 2002 and as a sequel to this, the petitioner was rendered surplus in the school, in question. Therefore, the salary of the petitioner was not released. 2 3. I fail to understand why the petitioner should suffer in case Sh.Suresh Awasthy obtained a stay order. Clarification, if any, should have been obtained from the Tribunal by the State in the Original Application filed by Sh.Suresh Awasthy. The petitioner could not be made to suffer and could not be denied salary for the period when she served in a school as per the orders of the State itself. It is not that the petitioner violated any orders of the State. Therefore, the petition is allowed. 4. The respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period, if not already paid to her, on or before 30th April, 2011 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date the salary fell due till the date of payment of the same. In case the payment is not made by 30th April, 2011 then the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. December 31, 2010 (m) ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge