IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.735 of 2025 Decided on: 25th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surender Pal …..Petitioner Versus M. Sudha Devi and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges violation of the decision rendered in Birender Singh Guleria & others Versus The Secretary Higher Education & others2. Operative portion of the said decision 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 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 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWP No.9558 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matters on 23.04.2025 2 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 order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure C/2) passed by the respondents pursuant to the directions issued in the aforesaid decision. Consideration order having been passed by the respondents, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his grievances including against the consideration order in case he feels aggrieved against it. Contempt in the given circumstances is not made out. The present petition is accordingly dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his grievances including against the consideration order. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh