Shesh Ram Thakur Vs. Rohan Chand Thakur CMP No.8290 of 2025 in COPC No.136 of 2025 25.04.2025 Present: Petitioner Shesh Ram Thakur in person. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent. By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/petitioner for revival of contempt petition bearing No.136 of 2025, which came to be decided vide order dated 22.03.2025, titled as Shesh Ram Thakur Vs. Rohan Chand Thakur, thereby directing the respondents to comply with the mandate contained in the judgment dated 09.12.2024, CWP No.12919 of 2024, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in titled Shesh Ram Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, within two weeks. 2. Since representation, as detailed hereinabove, never came to be decided within stipulated time, applicant/petitioner approached this Court through instant application for revival of contempt proceedings. 3. Before action, if any, could be taken upon the instant application, Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel representing the respondent made available communication dated nil, issued under the signatures of Executive Director, HRTC, Shimla, to state that respondent after having considered the representation filed by the petitioner in light of judgment, alleged to have been violated, has already allowed the holidays/gazetted holidays as admissible as per notification dated 28.07.2017 to the applicant/petitioner. It is further mentioned in the afore communication that since petitioner agitated the provision of afore notification in his representation and claimed holidays/gazetted holidays as admissible to other staff deputed in the office, Managing Director of Corporation has constituted a Committee vide order dated 08.04.2025 to examine the issue of discrepancy, especially with regard to Second Saturday, Gazetted Holidays, Restricted Holidays, being given to operational staff. In order to resolve the issue, Committee shall examine the procedure of Holidays/Gazetted Holidays applicable in other STUs (State Transport Undertaking) of neighbouring States, which may take some time. 4. Since representation, having been filed by the petitioner, already stands decided in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, no action of respondent can be said to be contumacious. Though, petitioner, who is present in person, attempted to argue that consideration order passed in purported compliance is not in conformity with the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, however, this Court is not persuaded to accept such submission of him for the reason that instant proceedings are only meant to ensure compliance of judgment, alleged to have been violated. Correctness of order passed in purported compliance of judgment alleged to have been violated cannot be looked into in the instant proceedings, rather, for that purpose, petitioner is required to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present application is disposed of with, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. Since Committee has been already constituted to look into the grievance of the petitioner, this Court hopes and trusts that Committee shall conclude its proceedings and give its report expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months. April 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge