Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1300/2026 of GOPAL DUTT AND OTHERS Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER on 14 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1300 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Gopal Dutt & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.
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. 1300 of 2026
Date of Decision: 14.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Gopal Dutt & Ors.
……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, 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)
By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 24.04.2026, rendered in Execution Petition No.333 of 2026, titled as Gopal Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., whereby Principal Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition filed by the petitioners, had taken note of the office order dated 10.09.2025, whereby the petitioners were considered as regular employees in the relevant pay-scale, as admissible from time to time, from the date of their initial appointment/joining on contract basis, along with all consequential benefits, in terms of the order passed by the Director of School Education. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no
2
steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now, judgment, alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be positively complied with within a period of three weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, 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. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged.
September 14, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil)
Judge