IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1430 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Kurmo Devi & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Sh. Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate 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 26.08.2011, rendered in CWP(T) No.6082 of 2008, titled as Kurmo Devi and others Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents to grant the petitioners the pay scale of Rs.2400-4000/- with effect from 1.1.1986 and Rs.2850-4375/- with effect from 18.02.1989 and all the corresponding revisions, which have taken place in the State of Punjab so far as the category of Project Officers is concerned, within a period 2 of 12 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. Pushpinder Jaswal, 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 four 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 four 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 official. December 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge