Bhawani Singh Vs. Pankaj Lalit & Ors. CMP No.10032 of 2025 in COPC No.670 of 2024 13.11.2025 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the non-applicants/ respondents-State. Mr. Rakesh Kanwar, Secretary and Ms. Reema Kashyap, Director, Langauge and Culture, present in person. Pursuant to order dated 08.10.2025, Mr. Rakesh Kanwar, Secretary and Ms. Reema Kashyap, Director, Language and Culture, have come present in Court. While referring to order dated 04.12.2024 passed in purported compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, Officers present in Court state that since there was only direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for regularization, in terms of Policy framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time and respondents have already considered the case of the petitioner, in terms of Policy of regularization, no action of their can be termed as contumacious. While referring to para 19 of the judgment, it came to be submitted at the behest of the officers present in Court that though in terms of directions contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, petitioner herein stands reengaged as daily wager in the society, but since it has been the categoric stand of the respondents that petitioner is not the employee of the Government, rather of the society, benefit of Policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularizing the daily wage employees cannot be extended to be petitioner. At this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State, vehemently argued that on account of passing of consideration order, in terms of directions contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, same stands complied with, as a result thereof, present petition has been rendered infructuous. To the contrary, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that while complying with the directions contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, respondents are expected to take note of entire judgment and not only concluding part. He further stated that though in the concluding part of the judgment, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, but since this Court, before passing afore order, had specifically arrived at a conclusion that petitioner herein is entitled to regularization, in terms of Policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, respondents have no option, but to regularize the services of the petitioner. Though having carefully perused judgment, alleged to have been violated in its entirety, this Court finds that this Court, while ordering re-engagement of the petitioner on daily wage basis in the newly created society, made observations that on account of long service rendered by the petitioner, he is entitled to regularization, but admittedly, while issuing directions, this Court specifically called upon respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, in light of Policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. Pursuant to aforesaid direction, respondents have passed order dated 04.12.2024, perusal whereof reveals that respondents though considered the case of the petitioner, but not found him entitled for regularization on account of the fact that he is not the employee of the Government, rather of the society. Since respondents have passed order in compliance of mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, no action of theirs can be said to be contumacious. Correctness of order passed in purported compliance can certainly be seen in appropriate proceedings, but not in contempt proceedings, which are only meant to ensure compliance of the order passed by Court and punish the person guilty of willful disobedience. Since in the case at hand, respondents, in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, have already reengaged the petitioner on daily wage basis in the society, but after having considered the case of the petitioner, in terms of Policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, have not found him entitled for regularization, no further orders can be passed in the case at hand, rather being aggrieved, if any, on account of non- regularization, petitioner is required to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law. In view of the aforesaid compliance, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same are closed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance of the judgment, alleged to have been violated. November 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge