The appellants-petitioners were engaged as “Vidhyarthi Mitra” on contract basis; they approached this Court by filing a writ petition with other incumbents stating the grievance, inter alia, that their services would not be continued after summer break. It appears that the engagement of the appellants-petitioners continued during the pendency of the litigation pursuant to the orders passed by the Court. Thereafter, a batch of petitions was decided at Jaipur Bench of this Court on 8.5.2009 with certain directions essentially to the effect that the respondents shall consider the cases of appellants-petitioners for continuation in service until the regular selections were made but with the observations that the appellants-petitioners would not be entitled for salary during the period of vacations i.e, when the schools remain closed. Following the said decision, a batch of writ petitions including the one preferred by the appellants-petitioners, was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.5.2009 in the same terms and with the same directions.
The appellants-petitioners have the grievance against denial of salary for summer vacations; and it has been vehemently argued that non-payment of the salary for the summer vacation is nothing but exploitation of the appellants-petitioners who had no other option except to accept the terms and conditions of the contract.
We take notice of the fact that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in which one of us (Hon'ble the Chief Justice Jagdish Bhalla) was a party, has already considered and rejected the claim of salary for summer vacations in relation to similarity situated persons. The said decision in the case of Rajendra Kumar Saini & 126 v. State of Rajasthan is reported in 2010 (1) WLC (Raj.) 171. We do not find any ground to differ from the view already expressed by the co-ordinate Bench.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.