2025:HHC:36950 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 412 of 2025 Decided on: November 04 , 2025 Suraj Prakash ...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar, Secretary (Education), to the Government of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Sh. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges violation of following directions issued in Suraj Prakash vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2:- “4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the case at hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. For reasons alike as have been detailed in judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed in CWP No. 2500 of 2021, present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the promotional increments to the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 CWP No. 342 of 2024, decided on 17.09.2024. 2025:HHC:36950 2 petitioner to the post of Head Teachers, the date from which the promotional increment has been released to other Head Teachers who were promoted before 01.10.2012. This exercise be carried out within six weeks, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @ 5% p.a.” 2. On being put to notice, respondents have filed compliance affidavit pleading compliance of the judgment in letter & spirit. The relevant portion from the compliance affidavit reads as under:- “2. That as a matter of fact, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the CWP No. 342/2024 on 17.09.2024 by directing the respondents to release the promotional increments to the petitioner, to the post of Head Teachers, the date from which the promotional increment has been released to other Head Teachers who were promoted before 01.10.2012. 3. That in compliance to the Hon’ble Court order, benefit of FR 22 (I)(a)(1) on HT post has been extended to the Petitioner vide office order dated 11.12.2024 (Copy annexed as Annexure R-I) and as per information received from the Block Elementary Education Officer Drang-I, net arrears amounting to Rs. 89,954/- after deducting tax of Rs. 9995/-, out of total arrears of Rs. 99,949/- has been paid to the petitioner on 20.05.2025. (Annexed as Annexure R-II & R-III) 4. That on the basis of submissions made in the preceding paras, it is humbly submitted that the Respondents have complied with the judgment dated 17.09.2024 in its letter and spirit. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present contempt proceedings against the 2025:HHC:36950 3 Respondents may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised an issue that petitioner has been released arrears only up to three years from the date of filing of the writ petition; That the petitioner is entitled to be released all the arrears due to him. 4. In terms of the directions issued in Suraj Prakash2 respondents were directed to release the promotional increments to the petitioner to the post of Head Teacher from the date from which the promotional increment had been released to the other Head Teachers who were promoted before 01.10.2012. To a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that arrears on account of promotional increments had been released to the petitioner at par with the other Head Teachers who were promoted before 01.10.2012. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner should have been released all the arrears due to him. If that is the grievance of the petitioner, then it is for him to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Insofar as Suraj Prakash2 is concerned, directions issued to the respondents were to release promotional increments to the petitioner to the post of Head Teacher at par with the other Head Teachers, who were promoted before 2025:HHC:36950 4 01.10.2012. Respondents having admittedly granted said relief to the petitioner, contempt cannot be said to have been made out. 5. In view of above, respondents cannot be held to be in contempt of the directions issued by this Court. Present petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his surviving grievances, in accordance with law. Notices issues to the respondents are discharged. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge November 04 , 2025 (PK)