IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADSH AT SHIMLA COPC No. 1625 of 2026 Decided on: 08.10.2026 _______________________________________________________________ Monika Verma ....Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and other ....Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for Respondents No.1 and 2-State Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the order/judgment dated 06.05.2026 [Annexure C-1], passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 20445 of 2025, titled as Monika Verma versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others. The Operative part of the order/judgment reads as under: “5 This petition is disposed of by directing that the directions passed in Vijay Parmar and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (supra), shall be construed to have been passed in the present case also mutatis mutandis. It is held that the act of the respondents-State of conferring the promotion to the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-4, dated 08.05.2025 on regular basis with immediate effect and on notional basis from the date she assumed the charge of the post of Principal on placement basis is bad and it is directed that the petitioner shall be conferred the benefit of regularization as was conferred to his counter-parts from the date of assuming the charge of the post i.e. from the actual date of the petitioner joining as Principal on placement basis with all consequential benefits.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent/State Authority have not complied with the judgment/order and have not extended the benefits, with consequential benefits accruing to the petitioner, till date 3. Heard. 4. Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, Learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the Respondents. 5. At this stage, Learned Counsel submits that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondents- 3 Competent Authority decides the case of the petitioner in a time bound manner. [Statement taken on record] 6. Considering the matter in above perspective, the instant petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Respondents-Competent Authority, to implement the order/judgment dated 06.05.2026, within six weeks from today. Notice issued to the respondents shall stand discharged, accordingly. 7. In aforesaid terms, instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge October 08, 2026 (Anita)