IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.650 of 2025 Decided on: 13th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priyesh Kaistha …..Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar Chaudhary .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges violation of Priyesh Kaistha Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2, wherein following operative directions were issued:- “22. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to offer appointment to the petitioner in terms of recommendation made by Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, vide communication dated 31.03.2014, forthwith. Petition stands disposed of, along with pending applications, if any.” 2. The afore-decision was assailed by the respondent-National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWP No.6714 of 2022, decided on 14.11.2024 2 Limited in LPA No.56 of 2025. The appeal was dismissed on 20.05.2025. Subsequent thereto, despite grant of repeated opportunities, the judgment in question was not implemented. Following order was passed in this matter on the last date of hearing (30.10.2025):- “Despite grant of repeated opportunities, judgment in question has admittedly not been implemented till date by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent again seeks an adjournment for implementing the judgment. Final opportunity of one week is granted to the respondent for implementing the judgment in letter and spirit, failing which, respondent shall remain present in the Court on the next date. List on 13.11.2025.” 3. When this matter was taken up in the morning session, learned counsel for the respondents placed on record a compliance affidavit alongwith an office letter dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure R-1) and on the strength of the same, prayed for adjourning the matter by one month for giving appointment to the petitioner. The non- compliance by the respondent and delaying tactics on his part for not implementing the decision promptly was not appreciated. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent, the matter was adjourned to the post-noon session, when learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment in question has been 3 implemented and appointment letter has been issued to the petitioner in today’s date (13.11.2025). Copy of the said appointment letter has also been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has some reservation to the appointment letter and with regard to those grievances, the petitioner will seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. In view of petitioner having been appointed on 13.11.2025, the present contempt proceedings are closed. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 13, 2025 Judge Mukesh