Disposed

Ashok Kumar v. Narender Pal Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026COPC/1350/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance with a prior writ court order directing a final decision on a compassionate appointment application within six weeks. The respondent's counsel stated the order would be complied with within two weeks. The court closed the contempt proceedings with a direction to comply within two weeks, failing which the petitioner may revive the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed; respondent directed to comply with the order dated 04.09.2025 within two weeks; notice discharged; petitioner granted liberty to revive proceedings upon non-compliance.

Ashok Kumar Vs Narender Pal Singh — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No.1350 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.09.2026

¶3

____________ ___________________________________________ Ashok Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Narender Kumar … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate,. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶4

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 intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 04.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 14261 of 2025 titled Ashok Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶5

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to take final decision within six weeks upon the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, who had admittedly died in 2014. Since, despite there being specific

¶6

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

¶8

direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings .

¶9

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today.

¶10

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 04.09.2025, positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done, failing which, he would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly.

¶11

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶12

September 18, 2026 (shankar)

Ashok Kumar v. Narender Pal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. Narender Pal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases