IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 968 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Happy Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Narender Pal Singh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, 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 29.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.8084 of 2025, titled as Happy Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while quashing and setting aside office order dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-3), directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate employment, afresh in accordance with applicable policy within six weeks and pass appropriate orders. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to 2 be taken at the behest of the respondent 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 two 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 two 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 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge