1 2026:HHC:31509 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. : 525 of 2025 a/w COPCs No. 916 of 2024; 344, 378, 524 & 527 of 2025 R eserved on : 14.07.2026 Decided on : 30 .07.2026 Uploaded on : 30 .0 7 .2026 1. COPC No. 525 of 2025 Upma Handa and others …Petitioners Versus Sharwan Manta …Respondent ……………………………………………………………………………. 2. COPC No. 916 of 2024 Gopal Singh Kanwar and others …Petitioners Versus Sharwan Manta …Respondent ……………………………………………………………………………. 3. COPC No. 344 of 2025 Chain Singh Kanwar and others …Petitioners Versus Sharwan Manta …Respondent ……………………………………………………………………………. 4. COPC No. 378 of 2025 Diwan Chand and others …Petitioners Versus 2 2026:HHC:31509 Sharwan Manta …Respondent ……………………………………………………………………………. 5. COPC No. 524 of 2025 Pushpa Sharma and others …Petitioners Versus Sharwan Manta …Respondent ……………………………………………………………………………. 6. COPC No. 527 of 2025 Lajender Singh Tomar and others …Petitioners Versus Sharwan Manta …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Senior Advocate, assisted by Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Nitin Thakur, Mr. Anshul Jairath, and Mr. Vanshaj Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge. The above-titled contempt petitions are being decided by this common order, as, all these contempt 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 3 2026:HHC:31509 petitions have been filed in CWPs No. 660 of 2018, 76 of 2020, 321 of 2020 and 860 of 2020, decided by this Court, on 28th March, 2024. 2. By way of judgment, dated 28th March, 2024, this Court has decided a bunch of petitions, alongwith the above-named writ petitions. 3. As per the record, the judgment, dated 28th March, 2024, had been assailed before the Division Bench of this Court, by way of LPA No. 242 of 2024, which was dismissed, on 4th October, 2024. 4. By way of the contempt petitions in hand, a prayer has been made to initiate contempt proceedings, against the respondent, for willful disobedience of the judgment, passed by this Court. 5. While deciding the above-noted writ petitions, vide judgment, dated 28th March, 2024, this Court has granted the following relief, to the petitioners therein: “19. Consequently in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petitions and accordingly same are allowed and impugned order dated 12.12.2017 passed by respondent No. 2, in all the petitions, is quashed and set-aside and amount, if any, recovered on account of the recovery proceedings, shall be refunded 4 2026:HHC:31509 to the petitioners alongwith upto date interest. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.” 6. It is not in dispute that this Court, vide judgment, dated 28th March, 2024, has quashed the order, dated 12th December, 2017, passed by respondent No. 2 and directed the respondents to refund the amount, if any, recovered, on account of the recovery proceedings. However, by way of the above-titled contempt petitions, a prayer has been made that by virtue of judgment, dated 28th March, 2024, the order, dated 12th December, 2017, passed by respondent No. 2, has been quashed, as such, their pay is required to be re-fixed, which has not been done by the respondent. 7. The prayer for initiating the contempt proceedings has been made, on the ground, that despite the judgment, passed by this Court, quashing the order, dated 12th December, 2017, when the salary for the month of September was credited into the accounts of the petitioners, they realized that their salary has been reduced. The said act of the respondent is stated to be not 5 2026:HHC:31509 only contrary to the orders, passed by this Court, but, also contemptuous. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to punish the respondent, for contempt of the Court. 9. Reply has been filed, in COPCs No. 916 of 2024 and 344 of 2025, in which, the factual position has not been disputed, but, it has been prayed that all the directions of this Court have been complied with and by way of filing the Contempt Petitions, the petitioners cannot claim the relief, which has not been granted to them, by the Court. 10. According to the respondent, there was no order, with respect to re-fixation of the pay of the petitioners, nor, there was any direction to restore their pay. 11. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the contempt petitions. 12. Rejoinder to the reply has been filed in COPC No. 916 of 2024, denying the stand, as taken by the 6 2026:HHC:31509 respondent, in the reply and it has been prayed that the respondents are guilty of contempt of the Court. 13. In the lead case, i.e. CWP No. 660 of 2018, the petitioners had made the following prayer: “(i) That the impugned order dated 24.3.2018 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No. 2, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the impugned order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-8), letter dated 9.2.2018 (Annexure P-6) and recovery notice dated 15.2.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively, may kindly be set-aside and quashed. (iii) That after setting aside the orders dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-8), letter dated 9.2.2018 (Annexure P-6) and recovery notice dated 15.2.2018 (Annexure P-7), respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed to restore the salary of the petitioners as drawn in February, 2018 prior to the issuance of the recovery notice. (iv) That the respondent No. 3 may further be directed to release the less paid salary for the month of February, 2018 onwards to the petitioners.” 14. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court, has passed the order, dated 28th March, 2024, operative portion of which, has been reproduced hereinabove. 15. In this backdrop, considering the limited jurisdiction of this Court, under the Contempt of Courts 7 2026:HHC:31509 Act, the material question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is as to whether any action can be taken against the respondent, for willful disobedience of the orders, passed by this Court, whereas, it is not in dispute that the directions, as contained in para 19 of the judgment, dated 28th March, 2024, have been complied with. 16. In this regard, it would be profitable for this Court to make reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others versus M. George Ravishekaran and others, reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 373, wherein, it has been held that the power to punish for contempt is a special and rare power and the very nature of the power, casts a sacred duty, in the Courts, to exercise the same with great care and caution and the Courts must not travel beyond the four corners of the order, which is alleged to have been flouted. Relevant para-19 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a 8 2026:HHC:31509 special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju, (2004) 13 SCC 610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami, (2008) 5 SCC 339; and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 SCC 613.” (self emphasis supplied) 9 2026:HHC:31509 17. Being guided by the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have miserably failed to make out a case to initiate the proceedings, as prayed, in the present petitions. 18. The contempt petitions are disposed of, accordingly, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court, in case, their grievances still remain to be redressed, by taking recourse to appropriate proceedings. An attested copy of this order be placed on the all the connected files. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 30, 2026 ( rajni )