Kaushalya Vs Sanjay Gupta and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kaushalya Vs Sanjay Gupta and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; present proceedings closed without adjudication of the alleged non-compliance, notice discharged, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of, with the petitioner free to avail appropriate remedy for her surviving grievance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have complied with para-6 of the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025, directing them to ensure payment of the remaining balance of Rs. 8,78,511/- to the petitioner in two installments on or before 31.08.2025.

Court's answer

The Court did not adjudicate the alleged non-compliance. Recording that the petitioner, in view of the observations in para-6 of the order dated 09.05.2025 in Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025, intends to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of her surviving grievance, the Court closed the present proceedings, discharged notice, and disposed of pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COPC No. 1466 of 2025 (Kaushalya Devi v. Sanjay Gupta and another), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 30.12.2025 by Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025, particularly para-6 thereof, whereby the respondents were directed to ensure payment of the remaining balance of Rs. 8,78,511/- to the petitioner in two installments on or before 31.08.2025, failing which revival of the proceedings was permitted. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Amar Chand @ Amru Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (Ex. Petition No. 48/2025), State of Himachal Pradesh & others v. Rakesh Kumar (LPA No. 323/2025) and State of Himchal Pradesh & Others v. Surajmani (Civil Appeal No. 1595/2025), contending the petitioner was entitled only to notional benefits and that office instructions dated 22.12.2025 had conferred work charge status on the petitioner on notional basis from the due retrospective date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the observations in para-6 of the order dated 09.05.2025, she intends to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of her surviving grievance. Held: present proceedings closed; notice discharged; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the alleged non-compliance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No. 1466 of 2025 Decided on: 30.12.2025. Kaushalya Devi …Petitioner Versus Sanjay Gupta and another .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioner: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Chandernarayan Singh, Advocate.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

Petitioner alleges non-compliance of the order dated

09.05.2025 passed in Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025, more particularly to para-6 thereof which reads as under:-

“6. Consequently, in view of substantial compliance of judgment, sought to be executed, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that remaining balance of Rs.8,78,511/- is paid to the petitioner in two installments on or before 31.08.2025, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.”

2. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents

placed reliance upon Amar Chand @ Amru Ram versus State of

Himachal Pradesh & Others² and State of Himachal Pradesh &

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2Ex. Petition No.48/2025, decided on 08.10.2025.

2

others versus Rakesh Kumar³ and submits that the petitioner was only entitled to notional benefits in terms of decision rendered in State of Himchal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani⁴ and that respondents have already decided to confer work charge status on notional basis to the petitioner from the due retrospective date in terms of office instructions dated 22.12.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of observations made in para-6 of the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025, the petitioner intends to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of her surviving grievance. Hence, present proceedings are closed. Notice stands discharged. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

30^th December, 2025(yogesh)

3 LPA No.323/2025, decided on 26.11.2025.

4Civil appeal No.1595/2025, decided on 06.2.2025, alongwith connected matters.