Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18943 (HP)

KARAM CHAND v. DIVESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

COPC/949/2026 · 2026-08-17

Sushil Kukreja

Contempt Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Contempt Petition No.949 of 2026 Date of decision: 17.08.2026 Karam Chand ….Petitioner Versus Divesh Kumar & Ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate vice Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge(Oral): CMP No.18545 of 2026 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in refiling the present petition, is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. Contempt Petition No.949 of 2026 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 14.08.2026, wherein, it has been 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 stated that the service of the petitioner -Karam Chand, Safai Karamchari (now retired), has been regularized retrospectively w.e.f. 14.05.2001, subject to the final outcome of LPA No.26780/2026, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Pramod Singh & Ors. in CWP No.10250 of 2023, filed by the Department in the similar situated case of Sh. Promod Singh, Junior Engineer and subject to the conditions as laid down in Office memorandum of the Govt. of H.P. Finance (Pay Revision) Department No. FIN(PR)B(7)-2/2001, dated 31.05.2010 and Finance Department letters dated 15.12.2011 and 01.01.2012. As such, the ibid judgment has been complied with by issuing order dated 13.08.2026 to respondent No.3, i.e. Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Sunni, District Shimla, with direction to issue further regularization order with retrospective effect duly imposing the condition i.e. outcome of LPA No.26780 of 2026, which is pending adjudication before this Court. 3. Therefore, in view of the above, no further order is required to be passed in the present contempt petition and accordingly, the same is closed and disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to assail the aforesaid order dated 3 13.08.2026, if he still remains aggrieved, in accordance with law. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge August 17, 2026 (reena)