IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.173 of 2024 Decided on: 9th April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhupender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Atul Verma .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges wilful and deliberate disobedience to the order of the Court dated 16.10.2023 passed in CWP No.7797 of 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for the respondent. 3. Sh. Vikas and Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.2 was disposed of with following operative directions:- “12. For the above reasons, we do not find the impugned administrative action of respondents to be in conformity with above enunciated principles of law and 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWP No.5652 of 2022, decided on 14.07.2023 2 accordingly the impugned standing order dated 08.12.2020 is held to be arbitrary, discriminatory and hence, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We accordingly quash the impugned standing order dated 8.12.2020 (Annexure P-5). Consequently, the prayers made by the petitioners in the petition also deserves to be rejected for the sole reason that the petitioners cannot claim negative equality. Benefit granted without any legal basis cannot be relied upon as a principle of parity. 13. Since, the beneficiary under the standing order dated 08.12.2020 is not before this Court, we are refraining ourselves from commenting on the consequent promotion granted to such person. We, however, expect the respondents to take in all fairness appropriate administrative action in terms of this judgment.” Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, respondent issued an order on 07.10.2023 (Annexure P-2), reverting the petitioner (ASI at that time) to the post of Constable with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 07.10.2023, petitioner instituted CWP No.7797 of 2023. Under interim order dated 16.10.2023 passed in CWP No.7797 of 2023, operation/execution of order dated 07.10.2023 (impugned therein) was stayed. Petitioner alleges violation of the aforesaid interim order. 4. Learned Advocate General submits that order dated 07.10.2023 impugned by the petitioner in CWP No.7797 of 2023 had been withdrawn on 17.11.2023. 5. Since the order dated 07.10.2023 has ceased to be in existence and by virtue of interim order dated 3 16.10.2023 passed in CWP No.7797 of 2023, it was the aforesaid order dated 07.10.2023 that had been stayed, therefore, no contempt can be said to have been committed by the respondent. In view of above, this contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh