Disposed

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Apr 2014CWP/1785/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning vacation salary eligibility for contract teachers, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh relied on precedent to direct the respondents to disburse the salary within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to disburse vacation salary for the undisputed period within one month; 10% interest for delay; personal liability for delaying officers.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.1785 of 2014-I

¶3

Date of decision : 2.4.2014

¶4

Sanjay Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate.

¶9

For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, A.G. with Mr. B.S. Parmar, Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Mr. Anup Rattan, Addl. A.Gs and Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. A.G.

¶10

Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)

¶11

The entitlement of the petitioner to the vacation salary is in issue in the present writ petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others in CWP No.415 of 2000 , decided on 01.09.2008 and connected matters. Also this Court, on 09.01.2012 had passed following directions in CWP No.11920 of 2011-C , titled Vijay Kumar Chandel versus State of H.P. and others which read as under:-

¶13

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

…2…

¶15

“This issue pertaining to vacation salary to contract teachers is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court Baldev Singh & others versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No.415 of 2000, decided on 1^st September, 2008 and the judgment has become final. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release eligible vacation salary, during the entire service period, to the petitioner in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner. 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.”

¶16

As such, present petitioner being similarly situated, petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to disburse the vacation salary for the undisputed period, if not already disbursed to the petitioner, as per his entitlement. Needful be positively done within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order by the petitioners.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of, as also pending application(s), if any.

¶18

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

¶19

April 2, 2014 (KS)

¶20

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puran Chand Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Hem Raj Vs State of Hp

Sunita Kumari Vs State of Hp

Kalam Singh Vs State of Hp

Gurdyal Singh Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni Vs State of Hp