Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1642/2026 on 13 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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 PRADSH AT SHIMLA
COPC No. 1642 of 2026 Decided on: 13.10.2026 _______________________________________________________________
Chaina Ram
....Petitioner Versus
Devesh Kumar and others
….. Contemnors
Coram :
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Heard.
2. Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, Learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the Respondents-Competent Authority.
3. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had passed an order on 18.09.2026 [Annexure C-1], directing the Respondent-Competent Authority to engage the petitioner, subject to the petitioner depositing back the retiral benefits received by him. Petitioner is stated to have made a representation on 19.09.2026 [Annexure C-2], requesting the Respondents to implement the order but the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
( 2026:HHC:45701 )
Respondent-Competent Authority has not engaged the petitioner as yet.
4. Considering the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that it is the petitioner who has not complied with the order as he has neither depositing the retiral benefit-received, which were known to the him nor had he requested the Respondent-Competent Authority to furnish the details of Head of Accounts, where, the amount was to be deposited.
5. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for petitioner, at this stage, prays for permission to withdraw the instant petition, so as to enable him to approach the Respondents-Competent Authority for seeking compliance of the order.
6. Be that as it may.
7. Needless to say, that in case, the petitioner approaches the Respondent-Competent Authority, in that event, the Respondents shall make available the details of amount to be deposited and the Head of Account and other details, so as to perform his part of the obligation; and to enable the Respondents-Competent Authority to take the consequential action for reengagement, in terms of the order
( 2026:HHC:45701 )
dated 18.09.2026 [Annexure C-1] expeditiously and not later than two weeks from today.
8. Resultantly, instant petition is closed and notice is discharged, by reserving liberty to the petitioner, to seek appropriate remedy, in case of non-compliance of the order.
9. In the aforesaid terms, instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly, stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
October 13, 2026 (Anita)