IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 759 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Liaq Ram ……...Petitioner Versus Rajiv Sharma & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (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 willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 25.11.2021, rendered in CWP No.6096 of 2019, titled as Liaq Ram Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr., whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to release the retiral benefits, viz. Leave Encashment and Gratuity along with statutory interest, in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 2. Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate, 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 three weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, 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 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. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. July 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge