IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.435 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Chander Shekhar Gaur ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 27.03.2024, rendered in CWP No.3760 of 2020, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order: “5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by observing that the directions passed in CWP No.3126 of 2023 shall mutatis mutandi apply in the present case and shall be deemed to have been passed in this case also. Let the benefits of approved military service towards fixation of pay be granted to the petitioner from the date of his joining the civil employment within a period of 90 days from today. If the emoluments are not paid within the said period, the State shall be liable to pay simple interest @6% per annum on the due amount to the petitioner as from the date of joining. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 2 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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. 4. 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, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks, failing which they 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. May 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge