Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chand vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant And Others on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.877 of 2025
Date of Decision: 14.08.2025
___________________________________________________________
.
Ramesh Chand .........Petitioner
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Others .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
____________________________________________________________
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr.
r Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 & 3.
Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
____________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of
the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the
respondents for their having allegedly disobeyed the mandate contained in
the judgment dated 09.05.2025 passed in CWP No.5994 of 2024, titled
Ramesh Chand Vs. State of H.P. and Others, wherein direction came to be
issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the
representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking
into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No.165 of
2021, titled State of H.P. and Others Vs. Surajmani and Another, within a
period of four weeks.
.
2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps,
whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing
the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings.
3. Before notice, if any, could be issued in the instant
proceedings, Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, has put in appearance on
behalf of respondent No.2. While placing on record copy of office order
dated 14.07.2025, Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, states that respondents
after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of Surajmani case
(supra), have conferred the benefit of work-charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2001
on notional basis, till his regularization in the Education Department.
4. In view of the above, no action of respondents can be said to
be contumacious and accordingly the present proceedings are closed, with
the direction to respondents to ensure that pay fixation, if not already done,
is done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Liberty is
reserved to the petitioner to get the present petition revived, in case
needful is not done within the stipulated period, enabling this Court to pass
appropriate order against the erring officials.
August 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Rajeev Raturi) Judge
