Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1591/2026 of PANKAJ KUMAR KANUNGO AND OTHERS Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER on 5 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1591 of 2026 Date of Decision: 05.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Pankaj Kumar Kanungo & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1591 of 2026
Date of Decision: 05.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Pankaj Kumar Kanungo & Ors.
……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Though in terms of the mandate contained in judgment dated 05.08.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3068 of 2021, titled Pankaj Kumar Kanoongo & others vs. State of Himachal & others, petitioners herein have been treated as regular employees from the date of their initial appointment, but since consequential benefits have not been released, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed.
2. Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though
2
by now, he has every reason to believe and presume that judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its entirety, but, if not, the same would be positively complied with within a period of four weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by the learned Deputy Advocate General, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that consequential benefits, including arrears, if not already released, shall be released to the petitioners within a period of four weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents stand discharged. October 05, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil)
Judge