1 2025:HHC:2285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 18 of 2025 Date of decision: 10.01.2025 Bhikam Singh Bhangalia …Petitioner Versus Madhubala …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition complaining the violation of order dated 03.09.2024, which reads as under:- “CWP No. 9118 of 2024 Notice. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent and seeks time to file/obtain reply/instructions. Be filed/obtained on or before next date of hearing. List after four weeks. CMP No. 15307 of 2024 Notice in the aforesaid terms. According to learned counsel for the applicant recoveries are being effected from the emoluments 2 2025:HHC:2285 payable to the applicant. As per the applicant no notice was issued to the applicant prior to making such recovery. It is clear from the Act of the respondent- University that without affording and hearing applicant, recoveries are being effected. Therefore, during the pendency of the present petition respondent-University is restrained from making any recovery from the pension due and payable to the present applicant. The application stands disposed of.” 3. Noticeably, the allegation of the petitioner in this petition is not that the respondent-University is effecting any kind of recovery from his pension, but his precise grievance is that his pension has been reduced. 4. The mere reduction of pension cannot be construed as an act of the respondent of effecting some kind of recovery and the same could be due to variety of reasons. Why the pension has been reduced would be a subject matter for the learned Writ Court to consider but the same by itself cannot be construed to be an act amounting to contempt of the order dated 03.09.2024. 5. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, in case the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to approach the learned Writ Court for the redressal of his grievance(s). (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge 10.01.2025 (sanjeev)