IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1294 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Inder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Rajesh Sharma & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Singh, Jagota, proxy counsel vice Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant 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 the order/judgment dated 18.07.2025, rendered in CWP No.6677 of 2024, titled as Inder Singh Vs. State of HP and others, whereby this Court, while quashing and setting aside the communication dated 15.02.2024, held petitioner entitled to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme/CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and directed the respondents to settle the contribution of 2 the petitioner inter se NPS and OPS, as per Standard Operating Procedure issued on 04.05.2023 and thereafter, send the pension case to respondent No.4, which is further directed to process the same, at the earliest and release all the benefits incidental to the petitioner, being governed under CSS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on the basis of his length of service. 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. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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 two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, they would aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate 3 action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. December 08, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge