IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.628 of 2024 Decided on: 27th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raj Kumar Sood …..Petitioner Versus Dr. Abhishek Jain and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Dhanwanti, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges violation of Sh. Raj Kumar Sud Versus State of H.P. and Anr.2, which was disposed of with following operative directions:- “38. In result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 18.03.2013 and 29.07.2013, followed by office orders dated 13.11.2013 and 21.11.2013, are quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to implement the earlier order dated 23.07.2012, passed by respondent No. 1 and to grant him all the remaining consequential financial benefits with interest @ 6 % per annum within six weeks from the date of the production of this order.” 2. Pursuant to several orders passed in this matter from time to time, the respondents have placed on record 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWPOA No.2646 of 2019, decided on 12.7.2024 2 office instructions and also filed the compliance affidavit. According to the respondents, the judgment in question stands complied with. Arrears due and admissible to the petitioner stand released in his favour. As per the respondents, nothing further is payable to the petitioner, whereas, according to the petitioner, the judgment in question still has not been implemented in letter and spirit. Petitioner has some disputes about calculation of arrears as computed by the respondents. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these contempt proceedings be closed, however, liberty be reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievances in accordance with law. Granting such liberty, the present contempt proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh