IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1457 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.12.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Khem Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Rakesh Kanwar and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 14.10.2025, rendered in CWP No.16153 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting coupled with the fact that transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer from hard area to soft area or one of the stations of choice after completion of normal tenure of posting, this court sees no impediment in as much as issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide pending representations of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall 2 afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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 five days’ from today. 4. 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 five days, 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 official. December 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge