1 ( 2025:HHC:24304 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 741 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 ___________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Sudha Devi & Anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. ________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral) By way of instant contempt petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to comply with judgment dated 23.04.2025 passed in CWP No. 9558 of 2023, titled as Birender Singh Guleria & others Vs. State of H.P. & others, operative portion whereof reads as under:- “6. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petitions, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representations 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:24304 ) to the competent authority within a period of ten days, praying therein for consideration of their cases in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pushpa Devi, Umesh Jaswal and Nitin Kumar (supra) which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 2. Alongwith the contempt petition, the petitioner has placed on record copy of the rejection order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure C/2) passed by the respondents pursuant to the directions issued in the aforesaid decision. 3. Since the consideration order has been passed by the respondents, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance, including assailing of the consideration order, in case he is aggrieved against the same. 4. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, contempt is not made out against the respondents. 5. Accordingly, present contempt petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek 3 ( 2025:HHC:24304 ) appropriate remedy in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance. ( Sushil Kukreja ) July 25, 2025 Judge (raman)