IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.54 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Subhash Chand Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Mr. Balvinder Singh and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the order/judgment dated 05.04.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2874 of 2024, titled as Subhash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., whereby direction came to be issued to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Since, despite there being aforesaid direction, needful never 2 came to be done at the behest of respondent within stipulated time, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the order/judgment, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, made available communication dated 27.02.2025 issued under the signatures of Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, which is taken on record. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as copy of office order dated 27.02.2025 issued by Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, this Court finds that mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with. Pursuant to direction contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, respondent after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of Madan Lal (supra) has already ordered release of consequential monetary benefits qua the petitioner in terms of instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 15.12.2011 . 4. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is 3 disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. February 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge