1 ( 2026:HHC:12814 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.106 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 _____________________________________________________ Dr. Neeraj Singhal ....Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and another …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr.Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral) The present contempt petition has been filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of order dated 12.08.2025, passed by the learned Writ Court in CWP No.3327 of 2023. The relevant portion of order dated 12.08.2025, reads as under:- “12. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, though this Court finds no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to his claim of promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager, while his being on secondment basis in the respondent -HPPCL, but present petition is disposed of with the direction that option given by the petitioner for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:12814 ) permanent absorption shall be considered by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week and thereafter he shall also be considered for promotion to the post Deputy General Manager. Interim order dated 31.05.2023 passed by this Court, thereby directing the respondents not to convene DPC, shall remain in force till the final decision is taken on the option exercised by the petitioner for his permanent absorption in the respondent -HPPCL.” 2. Thus, perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for permanent absorption. Thereafter, the competent authority passed an order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure C-3), wherein the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by observing that the case of the petitioner has been considered meticulously but the same could not be allowed in isolation and in absence of detailed T&Cs/final approval from BOD for permanent absorption. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order reads as under:- “Now, therefore, consequent to above, the request of Dr. Neeraj Singhal, Senior Manager (C/M) has been considered meticulously but the same could not be allowed in isolation and in absence of detailed T*Cs/final approval from BOD for permanent absorption. However, upon finalization of T&Cs, the petitioner can apply and submit his formal consent for absorption in HPPCL along-with others. Thus, the request/claim of petitioner is hereby rejected and accordingly, disposed of.” 3. The petitioner has been repatriated to his parent organization, i.e. HPSEBL, vide office order dated 24.02.2026. 4. Since pursuant to order dated 12.08.2025, passed by the learned Writ Court, the case of the petitioner has been 3 ( 2026:HHC:12814 ) considered by the respondents, therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Notice discharged. 5. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to assail order dated 04.09.2025 & office order dated 24.02.2026, in accordance with law, if he is still aggrieved. ( Sushil Kukreja ) April 22, 2026 Judge (V. Himalvi)