IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 780 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hem Raj ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Nipun Jindal …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Singh Bhatia, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 06.12.2024, rendered in CWP No.14782 of 2024, titled as Hem Raj Vs. HRTC & Anr., whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondent to pay the remaining retiral benefits to the petitioner with actual rate of interest as per applicable rules, till the time of actual payment, which shall be paid to him within a period of six months. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 2. Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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 three weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, he 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 official. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. July 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge