IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADSH AT SHIMLA COPC No.1450 of 2026 Decided on: 24.09.2026 _______________________________________________________________ Kusum Lata ....Petitioner Versus Ashish Kumar Kohli ....Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Ms. Niranjana Kumari and Ms. Bhavita Kumari, Advocates. For the respondent : Ms. Varun Chandel, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging willful and intentional non-compliance of judgment dated 25.04.2026 [Annexure C-1], passed in CWP No. 9666 of 2026, titled as “Kusum Lata Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others”, whereby, after quashing the Impugned Enactment i.e The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024] was declared unconstitutional and Respondent/Competent Authority was directed to ensure the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 grant/release of benefits to the employees, alike the petitioner; and the rejection orders or orders/directions of proposing recovery of benefits already granted on the basis of Impugned Act were quashed and set-aside; with direction to extend benefits within 3 months [i.e before 25.07.2026] and based on this, Learned Counsel submits that neither the judgment has neither complied with nor the benefits had been extended/released as yet. 2. Submissions made by Learned Counsel for petitioner is misplaced, for the reason, that once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24885 of 2026, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Devender Kumar & Ors. on 29.07.2026 [Annexure C-3], directing the State Authorities to comply with the judgment within four months and this period of four months, is yet to lapse on 28.11.2026, therefore, the plea of Learned Counsel, in seeking implementation, dehors the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not tenable, and the plea is accordingly turned down. 3. At this stage, Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that since the judgment has not been complied 3 with, therefore, the petitioners shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondents are directed to comply with the judgment dated 25.04.2026 [Annexure C-1], as per the timeline mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [Statement taken on record]. 4. Heard. 5. Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, Learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of Respondents-State. 6. Considering the above and coupled with the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Devinder Kumar [supra], this Court disposes of the present petition, by directing the State Authorities to comply with the judgment [Annexure C-1], in letter and spirit, as per the time-line mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [Annexure C-3] supra. 7. In aforesaid terms the present petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 24, 2026 [Anita]