Poonam Kumari vs State of H.P. and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioners claim the benefit of contract service for the purpose of increment, pension and vacation salary. As far as the increment and pension are 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 Petitioner by the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh v. State of H.P. and Ors.. The Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. As and when the same is made, the second Respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law and due and admissible amounts shall be disbursed 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 by the Petitioner before the second Respondent.

The Writ Petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.