Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 205 (HP)

Mamta Thakur d/o Sh. Amar Singh Parmar v. State of H. P.

2011-01-06

KURIAN JOSEPH

body2011
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. In this petition, the petitioners have raised two contentions; (1) they are entitled for vacation salary and (2) they are also entitled for counting the service rendered by them on contract basis for the purpose of increments, pension etc. As far as the latter prayer is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to file appropriate representation before the second respondent. As far as the first issue is concerned, this Court has already held in several judgments that it will be open to the petitioners to execute bonds undertaking that in the event of the matter now pending before the Supreme Court is allowed, the petitioners will refund the amount granted to them with 10% interest. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of as under: (i) In the event of the petitioners executing bond to the effect that they will refund the amount with 10% interest in the event of the matter now pending before the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court in the case of vacation salary is allowed, the vacation salary be disbursed to them within a period of three months from the date of execution of the bonds by the petitioners. (ii) As far as the grievance regarding the counting of service rendered during the contract period followed by regular service for the purpose of increments and pension is concerned, the petitioner may file appropriate representation before the first respondent, in which case the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent within another four months. 2. The writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any.