IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 863 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 7.4.2025 passed in CWP No. 4915 of 2025 titled as Jagdish Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of CWP No. 3341 of 2019, titled as “Madan Lal Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., decided on 4.9.2021, within six weeks. Since despite repeated 2 requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. B.C Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent, made available communication dated 12.8.2025 issued under the signature of Director of School Education, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 5.8.2025, issued by the Deputy Director of School Education, Una, perusal whereof reveals that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, respondent after having considered case of the petitioner in light of Madan Lal Sharma (supra) has granted him due and admissible benefits. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and as such, same are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law qua surviving grievance if any. August 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge