Hardei Thakur vs State of H.P. and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner has basically three grievances, namely, (i) that she has not been granted the vacation salary; (2) that she has not been granted the increments and (3) that she has not been granted the revised pay scale.

The Petitioner is a contract employee. As far as the vacation salary is concerned, this Court has already issued several directions that depending on the final decision from the Apex Court in Baldev Singh and Ors. v. State of H.P. and Ors. Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 293, the vacation salary be given to the incumbents on their executing a bond to the effect that in case the decision in the Apex Court is against the employees, they would refund the amount with 10% interest. There shall be a direction accordingly in the case of the Petitioner also that on executing the bond, the vacation salary shall be disbursed to her within another two months.

As far as the counting of the contract period for the purpose of increments, revised-pay scale and pensionary benefits is concerned, it is for the Petitioner to approach the Government by an appropriate representation, in which case the matter will be duly considered by the State Government in light of the decision of this Court dated 16th December, 2010 in CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Anr. 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 copies of the judgments, referred to above, by the Petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy.