IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 931 of 2024 Date of Decision: 4.1.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bachan Singh and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Munish Datwalia, Addvocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar 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 petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 28.5.2024, rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8200 of 2021 (Bachan Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to respondent No.2-Director (Higher Education), Himachal Pradesh to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners by taking in to consideration judgment dated 2 4.10.2019, passed in LPA No. 21 of 2013, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Ravinder Kumar, judgment dated 10.1.2024 passed in CWP No. 6446 of 2023, titled as Priyanka Nagu v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and judgment dated 13.5.2024, passed in CWPOA No. 1453 of 2020 titled as Himachal Pradesh Teachers union and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 four 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, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the 3 present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. January 4, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge