Kurian Joseph, C.J.@mdashThe petitioners are aggrieved since they are not paid the vacation salary. Their another grievance is with regard to regularization on completion of eight years of contract service. As far as the vacation salary is concerned, this Court in CWP No. 4739 of 2010 titled as Meena Sharma v. State of H.P. and Anr. has considered the issue, which was also considered in CWP No. 2317 of 2010 in the following terms:
The petitioners are aggrieved since they are not able to reap the fruits of orders passed by this Court regarding the vacation salary. It appears that the Government had initially decided to grant the benefit but it is seen that the same has been withdrawn as per Annexure P-3 on the ground that the State has decided to take up the matter to the Supreme Court. We are informed that the State has already filed SLP against the order dated 1.9.2008, passed in CWP No. 144 of 2000.
2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the SLP has not even been registered before the Apex Court and the petitioners seek the benefit of order dated 1.9.2008, which the State initially had decided to implement. Apparently, the non-implementation is only on account of their decision to move the Supreme Court. It is also submitted that since the SLP has not even been admitted and since there is no interim order, there is no justification in not granting the benefit to the petitioners at least making it subject to the outcome of the matter now pending before the Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners are undertaking that they will refund the amount in case the Supreme Court takes a decision in favour of the State.
3. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Additional Advocate General and having regard to the factual position, we are of the view that the dispute in these cases can be given quietus in case the petitioners give undertaking that in the event of the Supreme Court deciding in favour of the State, the money so received will be remitted back with 10% interest. Therefore, in the event of the petitioners giving undertaking that they would refund the amount received by way of vacation salary with 10% interest in the event of the State winning before the Supreme Court, they shall be disbursed the vacation salary within a month of the execution of the undertaking. Needless to say that Annexure P-3 shall not stand in the way of disbursing the salary, as above.
4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications.
2. Therefore, as far as first grievance is concerned, the petitioners will also be entitled to the benefit of the judgment extracted above and the respondents will take appropriate action on the petitioners'' taking appropriate steps in light of the judgment extracted above within another three months.
3. As far as second grievance is concerned, it is submitted that they are entitled to regularization on completion of eight years, in terms of the policy and that such relief is granted in many similarly situated teachers. If that be so, the petitioners cannot be discriminated. They may file appropriate individual representation before the second respondent, in which case the matter will be considered by the second respondent and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law within another four months.
4. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.
Dasti copy.
