IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.877 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Ramesh Chand ……...Petitioner Versus Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 3. Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having allegedly disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment dated 09.05.2025 passed in CWP No.5994 of 2024, titled Ramesh Chand Vs. State of H.P. and Others, wherein direction came to be issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No.165 of 2 2021, titled State of H.P. and Others Vs. Surajmani and Another, within a period of four weeks. 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. Before notice, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. While placing on record copy of office order dated 14.07.2025, Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, states that respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of Surajmani case (supra), have conferred the benefit of work-charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2001 on notional basis, till his regularization in the Education Department. 4. In view of the above, no action of respondents can be said to be contumacious and accordingly the present proceedings are closed, with the direction to respondents to ensure that pay fixation, if not already done, is done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to get the present petition revived, in case needful is not done within the stipulated period, enabling this Court to pass appropriate order against the erring officials. August 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge