Dismissed¶28

Anita Vohra v. Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Contempt Petition – COPC No.506 of 2026

Himachal Pradesh HC23 Jul 2026COPC/506/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

COPC 506/2026 Himachal Pradesh High Court contempt petition dismissed as not pressed; compliance affidavit by respondent No.3 Baljeet Patial; leave encashment; interest 6% per annum; lead case CWP No.6583 of 2025 batch of petitions; delay attributed to Sub-Treasury, Kangra and petitioner's laches; liberty reserved to file execution petition; Justice Sushil Kukreja; decided 23.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedy under the law, including filing of an execution petition; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶28

Anita Vohra Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 ( 2026:HHC:30520 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

COPC No.506 of 2026

¶4

Date of Decision: 23.07.2026

¶5

___________________________________________________ Anita Vohra

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rakesh Kanwar and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Coram

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

¶16

Compliance affidavit has been filed by

¶17

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

¶18

mentioned that the judgment/order passed by this Court

¶19

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

¶20

systemic, owing initially to the processing time frame at the

¶21

Sub-Treasury, Kangra and subsequently due to the

¶22

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

¶23

2 ( 2026:HHC:30520 )

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

3 ( 2026:HHC:30520 )

¶30