Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 07.05.2025 vs Rakesh Kanwar & Anr on 7 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:13036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.428 of 2025
Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Nirmal Kumar & Ors. .........Petitioners
Versus
Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan
Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma,
Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents-State.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been
made on behalf of petitioners for initiation of contempt
proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully
and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the
order/judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed by learned Single
Judge in CWP No. 3743 of 2021, titled as Vikas Gupta & Ors.
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein direction
issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioner from the date, when they have completed eight years of
service with all consequential benefits within a period three
months from date of passing of order. Since, despite there being
specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above,
respondents failed to do the needful in afore terms, petitioners
have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record
clearly reveals that aforesaid judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge was further upheld by Hon'ble Division Bench vide
judgment dated 25.04.2024 passed in LPA No. 66 of 2022 titled
as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Nishant Sharma &
Ors. Though respondents attempted to take stay against the
aforesaid judgment by way of filing SLP, but same was also
dismissed.
3. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned Additional
Advocate General fairly states that respondents have no option,
but to implement the judgment, alleged to have been violated and
undertakes on behalf of respondents to ensure compliance with
the judgment positively within a period of four weeks.
4. Consequently, in view of above, nothing remains to be
adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same
are closed with a direction to the respondents to do the needful
in terms of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have
been violated, positively within a period of four weeks, if not
already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get
the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in
accordance with law, is taken against erring officials. Notices
issued to the respondents are discharged.
May 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Sunil) Judge
