IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1019 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Rajender Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Abhishek Jain and Another …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present 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 order/judgment dated 05.06.2025, rendered in LPA No.255 of 2025, whereby Division Bench of this Court passed the following order: “14. In such circumstances, we balance the interest of the parties, and in order to avoid arbitrary action by the State, we deem it fit to dispose of these appeals with liberty to the petitioners-appellants to approach the respondents-State by filing representation(s) or serving legal notices upon them to put forth their claim, within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the certified copies. 15. On receipt of the said representation(s), the competent authority of the respondents shall take a call on the said legal notice(s) and pass a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the appellants whether they are entitled to the payment of said amount or not. In case competent authority finds that wherever payments are due, necessary action will be taken on the said representation(s) and the amount shall be disbursed to them, leaving it open to the parties 2 to agitate for their grievances, in accordance with law, regarding the balance payments.” 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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 one week from today. 4. 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, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of one week, 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. September 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge