Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 1734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Kurian Joseph, and V.K. Ahuja, Judge.
Hardish Kumar
Vs.
State of H.P. and ors.
CWP No. 1371 of 2011 along with CWP Nos. 1372, 1373, 1375, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1381 and 1382 of 2011
Decided on : March 23, 2011.
For the petitioners:Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G.
Contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service.
Headnote:
contract service - increment and vacation salary - Court held that contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service - vacation salary covered in favor of petitioners by previous decision - directed release of vacation salary to petitioners
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed the benefit of contract service for the purpose of increment and vacation salary.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service. Directed the release of vacation salary to the petitioners.
Issues: Benefit of contract service for increment and vacation salary.
Ratio Decidendi: Contract service cannot be equated with ad hoc service followed by regular service. Vacation salary covered in favor of petitioners by previous decision.
Final Decision: Writ petitions disposed of, directing the release of vacation salary to the petitioners.
Kurian Joseph, 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 versus State of H.P. & Others, 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. As far as the other grievances are concerned, it will be open to them to approach the first respondent.
2. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.
