IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.80 of 2025 Date of Decision: 4.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Birbal Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Proxy Counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 25.2.2025, issued under the signature of Director (Elementary Education), Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with. 2. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as copy of order dated 25.2.2025 passed in purported compliance of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, this court finds that the case of petitioner herein has not been found to be 2 similarly situate to the case of the petitioner(s) in CWP No. 2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and/or CWP No. 629 of 2023 and as such, his prayer to count the service rendered on contract service for the purpose of regularization as well as pension has been denied. 3. Though Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned proxy Counsel, attempted to argue that order dated 25.2.2025, passed in purported compliance of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated is not in conformity with the judgment alleged to have been violated, however, this Court having perused directions contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated finds that there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad. Since respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad have not found the petitioner entitled to the benefit in terms of the Taj Mohammad, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious. Needless to say, contempt proceedings are meant to ensure compliance of court orders and punish the official, who intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. 3 Correctness of the order passed in purported compliance can only be challenged by way of substantive petition. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law. March 4, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge