IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.679 of 2025 in CWP No.1893 of 2023 Decided on: 11.08.2025 ER. Apoorva Panchauri … Petitioner Versus Miss Isha and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s Vinod Sharma and Mamta Kumari, Advocates. For the respondents : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has produced the original record and has submitted that directions that were passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner was inter alia to decide the appeal and thereafter the observation was that subsistence allowance, if any, qua the period of suspension and salary for the period the petitioner had worked, if not withheld be released. 2. On the strength of the original record, she submits that the appeal itself was decided by the Competent Authority on 16.12.2023 and subsistence allowance as was payable to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner according to the Board stood paid to him which is also evident from the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not disputes that the appeal was indeed decided on 16.12.2023, but he submits that certain salary etc. has not been paid to him yet. 4. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the directions, passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, repeated contempt petitions filed by the petitioner indeed amount to abuse of the process of law. It is settled law that contempt cannot be used as a tool to arm-twist the other side, which is exactly what the petitioner has been doing in this case. Earlier, the order passed by this Court on 18.07.2025 was primarily influenced by the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench dated 03.10.2023 had not been complied with, despite various directions given in the contempt proceedings, however, this does not appear to be correct. 5. In light of these facts, these contempt proceedings are dropped, notices is discharged and order dated 18.07.2025 is also recalled. The amount that has been deposited by the respondents with the Registry of this Court is directed to be released back to the Board. 3 6. At this stage, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that if there is any other surviving grievance of the petitioner, then, he may approach the Court afresh by way of a writ petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 11, 2025 (Vinod)