2025:HHC:19363 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.381 of 2023 in CWP No.5830 of 2020 Decided on: 21.06.2025 Balak Ram Chauhan … Petitioner Versus Neelam Shami Rao & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Dhanvanti, Advocate. For the respondents : M/s Navlesh Verma and Saloni Nee Susham Lata, Advocates. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) The petitioner herein alleges willful disobedience of the directions passed by the Court in CWP No.5830 of 2020, decided by the Court on 25.07.2023, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure C-1. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to Annexure C-2 appended with the contempt petition has submitted that certain amount was demanded back from the petitioner by the respondents after the judgment was passed by the Court alongwith interest, which was duly paid by the petitioner alongwith interest. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that now when it 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:19363 comes to the payment of money which the respondents owe to the petitioner, they are not paying interest thereupon. He submitted that when the respondents have charged interest on the amount that stood paid to the petitioner, the Department is liable to pay the interest to the petitioner on the amount of arrears. He further submitted that the amount of pension that is now being paid to the petitioner even after revision is also less, then what he is entitled to. 3. When a query was put to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, interest was granted by the Court in the main judgment on arrears and when learned Senior Counsel took the Court through the contents of the judgment the same reflects that there is no such direction given by the Court. 4. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be said that there is any willful disobedience of the Court order. In case the petitioner has any grievance in this regard, then the better course for the petitioner is to agitate the same by way of fresh proceedings. 5. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any willful 3 2025:HHC:19363 disobedience of the directions passed by this Court, these contempt proceedings are dismissed, but with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issues raised by learned Senior Counsel before this Court by way of appropriate proceedings. Notice stands discharged. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 21, 2025 (Rishi)