IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1276 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kalu Ram ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Anurag Chander Sharma and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore and Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment dated 4.7.2025 in CWP No. 10633 of 2025, titled as Kalu Ram v. HPSEBL and Ors., whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and others and in SLP(C) No. 10719-10720 of 2025, titled as Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Nanak Chand and Ors., wherein it has been categorically held that work charge status shall be granted to 2 daily wage employee, who has completed eight years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. Since needful never came to be done at the behest of the respondents within the stipulated time, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings. 2. Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, Mr. Virender Kanwar, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, states that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated shall be complied with positively within three weeks. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive and accordingly same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to ensure that needful is done within the stipulated time, failing which respondents would further aggravate the contempt and respondents would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. December 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge