Madan Lal vs. Priyatu Mandal and others CMP No. 26424 of 2024 in COPC No.624 of 2024 05.05.2025 Present Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/ State. While placing on record communication dated 03.05.2025, issued under the signatures of Director (RD) Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, service of the petitioner has been regularized as Peon from due date. He states that since education qualification of the petitioner is matriculation with third division, he is only eligible to be appointed against the post of Peon and not any other higher post. Though, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that since petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor on contract basis on 01.04.1997, his services were required to be regularized as Supervisor, however, having perused para-8 of the judgment alleged to have been violated, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date, he completed eight years in terms of the policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, coupled with the fact that petitioner is not qualified to be appointed against the post of Supervisor, no action of the respondent can be said to be contemptuous and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present application and accordingly same is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to ensure that consequential benefits on account of regularization of the petitioner from due date in terms of judgment dated 26.8.2020 in CWPOA No.456 of 2019, if not already released, be released expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents under Contempt of Courts Act. Besides above, petitioner is also at liberty to lay challenge to order dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure R- 1 passed in purported compliance of the order/judgment alleged to have been violated, if he still remains aggrieved. Similarly, petitioner, if not already given posting, shall be given posting. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 05, 2025 (shankar)