High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 12 SHI CK 0337

Satish Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 13 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kurian Joseph, J · Dev Darshan Sood, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 10789 of 2011-I

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 306 words

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner was initially appointed as TGT on contract basis and subsequently he was appointed as a para teacher. He claims vacation salary for the period of his appointment on contract basis and then as a para teacher.

2.

The issue pertaining to vacation salary to contract teachers is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court Baldev Singh & others v, State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1st September, 2008 and the judgment has become final.

3.

Now the petitioner is a para teacher. He is aggrieved since he is not paid the vacation salary and other benefits as are paid to the contract teachers. In the judgment dated 21.10.2010, in CWP No. 2880 of 2010 titled as Dhananjay Saini v. State of H.P. & ors., and connected cases, this Court has held that para teachers are entitled to all the emoluments as are paid to contract teachers, because as per the Government policy, they are to be treated similarly for all purposes.

4.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay the eligible vacation salary, during the entire service period (contract as well as para teacher), to the petitioner, in case the same has not been granted so far, in view of the judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh & others v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 2000, decided on 1st September, 2008, on production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and copies of the judgments, referred to above. 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.

5.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.