IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No.1434 of 2026 Decided on: 23.09.2026. __________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Other ....Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy, Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge : Petitioners have invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging willful and intentional non-compliance of judgment dated 03.07.2026, passed in CWP No. 3522 of 2026, titled as “Dr. Ajay Kumar and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others”, whereby, after quashing the Impugned communication dated 07-03-2026 [Annexure P-8], Respondents-Competent Authority was directed to decide the matter afresh, by passing a speaking reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, if so desired and by taking into 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 account the broader settled principles of law as mentioned in Para 9 of the judgment, on or before 14.08.2026; and based on this, Learned Counsel submits that neither any personal hearing has been given nor any speaking order has been passed as yet, which as per Learned Counsel is contemptuous. 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-2], 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 with, therefore, the petitioners shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondents are directed to comply with the judgment dated 3 03.07.2026 [Annexure C1], as per the timeline mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [Statement taken on record]. 4. Heard. 5. Notice. Mr. Gautam Sood, 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. 7. In aforesaid terms the present petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 23, 2026 [Anita]