Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1650/2026 on 13 October 2026
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 PRADSH AT SHIMLA
COPC No. 1650 of 2026 Decided on: 13.10.2026 _______________________________________________________________
Ram Kishan
....Petitioner Versus
Er. Anju Sharma and Anr. ...Respondent/Contemnors
Coram :
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for Respondents- State.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the order/judgment dated 05.09.2025 [Annexure C-1], passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 14388 of 2025, titled as Ram Kishan versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others. The Operative part of the order/judgment reads as under: “5 Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law laid down in
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Surajmani and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from today.”
2. Basing reference to the orders dated 05.09.2025, [Annexure C-1], Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that Respondents have neither decided the claim in view of the judgment in case of Surajmani nor has the work-charge status and pay fixation benefits have been granted/released as yet.
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
5. At this stage, Learned Counsel submits that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondent- Competent Authority decides the representation of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. [Statement taken on record]
6. Considering the matter in above perspective, this Court directs the Respondent/Competent Authority to decide the representation, in terms of the order/judgment, within six weeks positively.
7. Needless to say, that in case, the order/judgment is not complied with in terms of this order, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, hereinafter, in accordance with law.
8. In aforesaid terms, the instant proceedings are closed and notice is discharged.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
October 13, 2026 (Anita)