IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 815 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Khushi Ram ……...Petitioner Versus Nipun Jindal & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, 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 petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 03.06.2025, rendered in CWP No.5329 of 2024, titled as Khushi Ram Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr., whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents/competent authority to pay due and admissible dearness relief to the petitioner in terms of office memorandums dated 07.02.2015 and 07.03.2021 within a period of six weeks. This Court further directed the respondents/competent authority that in case due and admissible dearness relief is not paid by the respondents to the 2 petitioner within the aforesaid period, then the same shall carry interest @ 5% per annum from the due date till its realization. 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. 2. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional 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 four 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, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, they 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 officials. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. August 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge