IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 758 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tara Chand & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 03.12.2024, rendered in LPA No.225 of 2024, titled as Tara Chand Verma & another Vs. State of H.P. & others, whereby Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the appellants, set aside the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3447 of 2021 to the extent prayer for grant of annual increments for the period of contractual service was denied and appellants are held entitled for consideration of their contractual service not only as qualifying service for purpose of pension but also 2 for grant of increments. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Ravi Chaudan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, 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 Deputy Advocate General, 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, they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. July 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge