Disposed

Goma and Others v. R.K. Verma and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026COPC/1218/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition was filed alleging that the respondents had violated an interim stay order of 29.05.2026 by re-fixing the petitioners' pay. On the date of hearing, the State produced instructions dated 18.09.2026 and a communication restoring the petitioners' higher pay. The petitioners did not dispute compliance, so the Court closed the contempt proceedings and discharged the notice.

What did the court decide?

Contempt notice discharged; contempt petition and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Goma and Others Vs R.K. Verma and Another — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:40313

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

COPC No.1218 of 2026 IN CWP No.8499 of 2026 Decided on: 21.09.2026

¶4

__________________________________________________________ Goma and others .....Petitioners Versus Er. R.K. Sharma and another ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

¶5

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶6

Petitioners have invoked the contempt

¶7

jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 29.05.2026 [Annexure C-2], passed

¶8

in CMP No.12401 of 2026 in CWP No.8499 of 2026, titled as Goma and others Versus State of H.P. and others, wherein, the operation of communication dated 04.04.2026 [Annexure P-5 therein] was stayed as an interim measure, till the reply was filed by Respondents to the writ petition.

¶9

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, by

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2026:HHC:40313

¶12

¶13

referring to Para-4 of the present petition that despite the fact that the communication dated 04.04.2026 [Annexure P-5 (supra)] was stayed by this Court on 29.05.2026 [Annexure C-2], yet, the respondents have re-fixed the pay to the disadvantage of petitioners, which reveals wilful and intentional disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.

¶14

3. Heard.

¶15

4. Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Learned Deputy

¶16

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

5. Upon listing of the case today, Learned State Counsel places on record a copy of the Instructions dated 18.09.2026 alongwith a copy of the communication dated 18.09.2026 [Taken on Record] passed by Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division Manali at Katrain, whereby, the higher pay of the petitioners has been restored.

¶18

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners do not dispute the above facts [Statement Taken on Record].

¶19

7. Considering the above facts, since the orders passed by this Court on 29.05.2026 [Annexure

¶20

2026:HHC:40313

¶21

¶22

C-2] has been complied with, therefore, instant

¶23

proceedings are closed, and the notice of contempt is discharged.

¶24

In aforesaid terms, instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

¶25

stand disposed of.

¶26

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶27

September 21, 2026 [Bhardwaj]

Goma and Others v. R.K. Verma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goma and Others v. R.K. Verma and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases