Disposed¶9

Vinod Kumar v. Ashish Kohli

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Sept 2025COPC/979/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition; civil contempt for non-compliance with writ-court direction; COPC No. 979 of 2025; Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh; CWP No.8567 of 2025 judgment dated 23.05.2025; release of higher stage of pay Rs. 30,500/-; two years regular service as Clerk; four-week compliance direction; Additional Advocate General assurance of compliance; petition closed/disposed with liberty to revive upon default; aggravation of contempt warning; notice discharged; Justice Sandeep Sharma; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decision dated 12.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; respondent directed to comply in terms of the judgment dated 23.05.2025 (CWP No.8567 of 2025) within four weeks, failing which contempt stands aggravated and the petitioner is at liberty to seek revival; notice to the respondent discharged.

Vinod Kumar Vs Ashish Kohli — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 23.05.2025 rendered in CWP No.8567 of 2025, warranting initiation of contempt proceedings.

¶5

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General (who accepted notice and stated that the judgment alleged to have been violated would be positively complied with within four weeks if not already complied with in totality), the Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly closes it.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within four weeks from today; failing which, he would aggravate the contempt and the petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.

¶9

Key takeaways

Notice issued to the respondent is discharged.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (COPC No. 979 of 2025, dec. 12.09.2025, Sandeep Sharma, J., H.P. High Court, Shimla): Petitioner alleged willful and intentional disobedience by the respondent of the direction in the order/judgment dated 23.05.2025 rendered in CWP No.8567 of 2025 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), whereby the respondents were directed to release the higher stage of pay of Rs. 30,500/- to the petitioner w.e.f his completing two years of regular service as Clerk within four weeks. On notice being accepted, the learned Additional Advocate General (Mr. B.C. Verma) stated that if not already complied with in totality, the judgment would be positively complied with within four weeks. Taking note of this fair stand, the Court closed the petition, directed the respondent to do the needful in terms of the violated judgment within four weeks, failing which contempt would be aggravated and the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival for appropriate action against erring officials; notice issued to the respondent was discharged.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No. 979 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.09.2025

¶3

______________________ Vinod Kumar Ashish Kohli	_______________________________________________ ……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Whether approved fo	andeep Sharma, Judge. r reporting?
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.
For the respondent: ________________________	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 23.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.8567 of 2025, titled as Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to release the higher stage of pay of Rs. 30,500/- to the petitioner w.e.f his completing two years of regular service as Clerk within four weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent

¶6

¶7

for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶8

Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, 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 four weeks from today.

¶9

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, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, he would aggravate the contempt and petitioner 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 respondent is discharged.

¶10

September 12, 2025 (Sunil)

¶11

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶12

Judge

Vinod Kumar v. Ashish Kohli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. Ashish Kohli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Chand Vs Hrtc

Arati and Others Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Chitra Rajta and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Surinder Kaur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manav Bharti University and Another Vs Asha Devi and Others