IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.522 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Raksha Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Ashish Singhmar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. D.N. Sharma and Mr. Rohit Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 3.9.2024, passed in CWPOA No. 4982 of 2020 (Raksha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.), whereby Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to pay salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2012 to September 2014 in the same terms, as has been paid to in 2 Mukesh Kumari’s case in CWP No. 9033 of 2014-D. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though he has every reason to presume that by now, judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be positively complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondent- contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks, failing which he would aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. June 2, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge