IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1220 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Shri Rakesh Kanwar & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 11.09.2025, rendered in CWP No.14555 of 2025, titled as Shri Sanjeev Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, whereby this Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, quashed and set aside impugned orders dated 11.07.2025, 15.07.2025, 29.07.2025, 30.07.2025, 31.07.2025 and 02.08.2025 and directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners afresh for grant of benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2022, strictly in accordance with judgment passed by 2 Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others within three weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioners have 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 three 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 three weeks from today, failing which, they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents is discharged. November 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge