Manju Parti Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manju Parti Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition dismissed as not pressed; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies including an execution petition; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum in terms of the judgment under reference, passed in a batch of petitions led by CWP No.6583 of 2025. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

No further order was required in the present petition and the matter was closed; consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed as not pressed, the petitioner's counsel having stated that he did not want to press it.

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate legal remedy available to her under the law, including filing of an execution petition.ratio¶30
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sushil Kukreja, Judge, oral judgment; decided 23.07.2026; neutral citation 2026:HHC:30479) — COPC No.503 of 2026, Manju Parti v. Rakesh Kanwar & others. Respondent No.3 (Baljeet Patial) filed a compliance affidavit asserting that the judgment/order of the Court — passed in a batch of petitions led by CWP No.6583 of 2025 — stood duly complied with, attributing residual delay to systemic causes (processing at the Sub-Treasury, Kangra) and to the petitioner's own laches in collecting her leave encashment. The petitioner disputed these averments. The only surviving controversy — whether the respondents were liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum in terms of that judgment — was not adjudicated: the petitioner's counsel stated he did not wish to press the contempt petition. The Court dismissed the petition as not pressed, closed the matter, reserved liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies including an execution petition, and disposed of pending miscellaneous applications. No statute was cited and no monetary award was made.

1 ( 2026:HHC:30479 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No.503 of 2026

Date of Decision: 23.07.2026

___________________________________________________ Manju Parti

....Petitioner

Versus

Rakesh Kanwar and others

…Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioner : Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur & Ms.Oshin Anand Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2/State.

Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

Compliance affidavit has been filed by

respondent No.3-Baljeet Patial, wherein it has been

mentioned that the judgment/order passed by this Court

stands duly complied with and the delay, if any, was entirely

systemic, owing initially to the processing time frame at the

Sub-Treasury, Kangra and subsequently due to the

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

2 ( 2026:HHC:30479 )

petitioner’s own laches and delay in coming to their office for collecting her amount of leave encashment.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the correctness of the averments made by respondent No.3 in his affidavit.

Be that as it may, now the controversy only revolves around the fact that whether the respondents are liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum in terms of judgment under reference, passed in a batch of petitions, lead case being CWP No.6583 of 2025.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this contempt petition. However, liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the execution petition.

In view of the above, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition and the matter is closed. Consequently, the contempt petition is dismissed as not pressed.

3 ( 2026:HHC:30479 )

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to

take recourse to the appropriate legal remedy available to her under the law, including filing of execution petition.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

shall also stand disposed of.

( Sushil Kukreja ) July 23, 2026 Judge

( V. Himalvi)