IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.317 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.04.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Bakshish Singh Rana ……...Petitioner Versus Nipun Jindal …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ 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 respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 23.08.2024, rendered in CWP No.8578 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order: “6. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. 7. The consequential benefits of the same shall be paid to the petitioner, on or before 28.02.2025, failing which the respondent/Corporation shall also be liable to pay interest thereon @ 6% per annum.” 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. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, 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 four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondent, 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 four 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. April 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge