2025:HHC:29376 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 712 of 2024 Decided on: 29.08.2025 Smt. Radha Devi … Petitioner Versus Sh. Ashish Singhmar and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2336 of 2016, titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, as affirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 110 of 2017, titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that this petition is completely mis-conceived. One Satya Devi had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2336 of 2016, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by a quasi judicial authority, in terms whereof, her appointment as an Anganwari 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29376 Worker at Anganwari Centre Syohali, was set aside. 3. In terms of the judgment passed by the Court, dated 19.09.2017, this Court dismissed the petition filed by Satya Devi by holding that the order passed by the Authority cancelling the appointment of Satya Devi did not suffer from any infirmity. This order has been confined by Hon’ble Division Bench. 4. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner has not been conferred appointment thereafter, therefore, this amounts to the contempt of the Court. This Court does not agrees with the submission of learned Counsel. 5. In terms of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, a civil contempt means a willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to the Court. 6. In this case, there was no mandamus issued or a direction given or order passed by the High Court to the effect that as a result of the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Satya Devi, the contempt petitioner be offered appointment. 7. Therefore, as there was no such direction, obviously, there was no breach of any direction by the respondents. The petitioner might be having some other remedy but her remedy was not by way of filing of the contempt petition. Accordingly, these proceedings are dismissed, with liberty, as prayed for, to the 3 2025:HHC:29376 petitioner to avail remedy available with her, in accordance with law. Notice discharged. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 29, 2025 (narender)