IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1263 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar & another …….Petitioners Versus Ashish Kohli … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 16.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 14912 of 2025, titled Ajay Kumar and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed respondent No.2 /competent authority to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners for grant of benefit under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2022 strictly in consonance with Mohit 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sharma case (CWP No. 1638/2024) and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondent failed to do the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 16.09.2025, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, he would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioners are at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 04, 2025 (shankar)