IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 644 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ghanshyam Verma ……...Petitioner Versus Akshay Sood …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 26.07.2025, issued under the signatures of Director, Technical Eduction Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar, enclosing therewith calculation sheets showing that in terms of mandate, contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, entire consequential benefits stand released to the petitioner, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, stands duly complied, as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. 2. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as documents annexed therewith vis-a-vis mandate contained in the 2 judgment, alleged to have been violated, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General that no action of the respondent can be said to be contumacious. 3. Though Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse calculation sheets, attempted to argue that petitioner was entitled to consequential benefits w.e.f. 2014 on account of fact that Court, while passing impugned order, had restricted benefits for three years prior to filing of the petition and since petitioner had filed petition in the year 2017, he was required to be given benefit w.e.f. 2014. However, having taken note of the fact that services of the petitioner were taken over on Government contract w.e.f 04.10.2015 as such benefits have already been granted from 2015. 4. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. August 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge