IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 979 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Ashish Kohli …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondent: 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 23.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.8567 of 2025, titled as Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to release the higher stage of pay of Rs. 30,500/- to the petitioner w.e.f his completing two years of regular service as Clerk within four weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, 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. B.C.Verma, 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 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, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks from today, 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 officials. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. September 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge