IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1393 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Begam Noora Khatoon ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Sukhvinder Singh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 01.08.2025, rendered in CWP No.9697 of 2024, whereby this Court passed the following order: “5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of two weeks, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within four weeks taking note of fact that husband of the petitioner was granted work-charge status w.e.f 01.01.2002, vide order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-1), as a result thereof, he became eligible for pension from the date of his retirement, if it is so, petitioner, being widow of deceased employee, is entitled to claim family pension. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.” 2 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that though he has every reason to 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. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondent- contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which, respondent would aggravate the contempt and petitioner 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 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge