IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1307 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Rawther Dawood Nazeem & others … Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, proxy counsel vice Mr. M.A.Safee, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents- State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 10.10.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 15943 of 2025, titled Sunil Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while allowing the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of benefit under the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2022, strictly in accordance with judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, within a period of three weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents 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 two 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 10.10.2025, positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done, failing which, they would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance 3 with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 10,2025 (shankar)