IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.169 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tek Singh & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Urvashi Rajta & Ms.Tara Devi, Advocates vice Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 petition, petitioners have prayed for the following main relief:- “(a) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that My Lords be pleased to punish the contemnors in accordance with law and direct the contemnors to comply with the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 15.06.2023 immediately fully in the interest of justice.” 2. Reply filed on behalf of respondents suggests that though pay of the petitioners has already been protected as per direction received from the Government, vide letter dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure R-2/1), but benefit under FR22(a) (i), is yet to be paid to the petitioners. Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though in terms of reply filed by the respondents, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings, but representation, if any, filed by the petitioner for increment or promotion shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. August 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2