IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 847 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tara Chand ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Nipun Jindal & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 06.11.2024, rendered in CWP No.4570 of 2023 titled as Tara Chand Vs. HRTC & Ors., whereby coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to release the consequential benefits admissible to the petitioner in light of his retrospective regularization under order dated 29.12.2012 on actual basis. Coordinate Bench of this Court further directed the respondents that arrears of admissible consequential benefits be released to the petitioner on or before 30.04.2025. Since despite there being aforesaid directions, no steps, whatsoever, came to 2 be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Raman Jamalta Advocate, 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 two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, 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 two weeks, 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 official. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. August 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge