CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Pavan Kumar vs State of H.P. and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 27 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 04 SHI CK 0289

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kurian Joseph, C.J · V.K. Ahuja, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 2266 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 167 words

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioners claim the benefit of contract service for the purpose of increment and vacation salary. As far as the increment and pension is concerned, this Court has already held that contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service and it is for the government to consider the matter. As far as the vacation salary is concerned, the matter is now covered in favour of the Petitioners by the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh v. State of H.P. and Ors. Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 293. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the second Respondent to release the vacation salary to the Petitioners in case the same has not been granted to them so far, within three months. As far as the other grievances are concerned, it will be open to them to approach the first Respondent.

2.

In view of the disposal of writ petitions, all the pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.