Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1644 (HP)

Randhir Kumar Rathta v. State of H. P.

2011-03-23

KURIAN JOSEPH, V.K.AHUJA

body2011
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The Writ Petitions have been filed mainly with the following prayers: 1. CWP No. 1524 of 2011 I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the impugned letter dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and all further communications in pursuance to this letter. II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to pay the salary for the vacation period to the Petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.2007 till date for which the persons appointed on contract basis have been held entitled. Respondents may be further directed to pay the arrears w.e.f. 1.4.2007 with interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. CWP No. 1525 of 2011 I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the impugned letter dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and all further communications in pursuance to this letter. II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to pay the salary for the vacation period to the Petitioners for which the persons appointed on contract basis have been held entitled.” 3. CWP No. 1526 of 2011 I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the impugned letter dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and all further communications in pursuance to this letter. II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to pay the salary for the vacation period to the Petitioners form the day they were appointed on contract basis till date when the petitioners were regularized, for which the persons appointed on contract basis have been held entitled. Respondent may be further directed to pay the arrears along with interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. It is submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Baldev Singh versus State of H.P. & Others. Respondent may be further directed to pay the arrears along with interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. It is submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Baldev Singh versus State of H.P. & Others. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the second respondent to release the vacation salary to the petitioners in case the same has not been granted to them so far within a period of four months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment alongwith copy of the Writ Petition(s) after examining the case in the light of the judgment, referred to above. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.