IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1193 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dina Nath ……...Petitioner Versus Er. Narender Pal and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 10.5.2024 passed in CWP No. 7056 of 2023, titled as Dina Nath v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court while quashing the impugned order dated 13.6.2022, disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds against Class-IV post in terms of policy in vogue at the time of death of father of the 2 petitioner. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though he has every reason to presume that by now, judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be positively complied with within a period of three weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. November 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge