IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 825 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pankaj and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar 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 petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 23.4.2025 passed in CWP No. 9296 of 2023, titled as Pankaj and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4299 of 2019 titled as Pushpa Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh University., in 2 CWP No. 5090 of 2022 titled as Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., and in CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019 titled as Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, within a period of four weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. B.C Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though he has every reason to 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 the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, 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. August 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge