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 2 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 3 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