IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 993 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.9.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Raveen ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Anita Devi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol 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 petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 3.6.2025 passed in CWP No. 9185 of 2025, titled as Versha Pahwa and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents to release higher stage of pay of Rs. 33400/- to the petitioner w.e.f. his completing two years of regular service as Radiographer within four weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be 2 complied with, petitioner is 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, respondent- contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, 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. September 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge