IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 817 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sat Pal ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Gopal Beri …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 09.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.2150 of 2023 titled as Sat Pal Vs. State of H.P. & Anr., whereby coordinate Bench of this Court, while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-11) and directed the respondents to confer the benefit of approved military service to the petitioner towards fixation of his pay from the date of his joining the civil employment. Since despite there being aforesaid directions, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent 2 for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional 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 two weeks, 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. Notices issued to the respondent is discharged. August 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge