Dismissed¶5

Janak Raj Balhotra v. Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC23 Jul 2026COPC/509/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anita Vohra v Rakesh Kanwar — COPC No.506 of 2026, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, Justice Sushil Kukreja (oral), 23.07.2026: contempt petition concerning compliance with the Court's judgment in a batch led by CWP No.6583 of 2025 (leave encashment; interest @ 6% per annum) dismissed as not pressed; matter closed; liberty reserved to file execution petition; compliance affidavit by respondent No.3 Baljeet Patial cites systemic delay (Sub-Treasury, Kangra) and petitioner's laches; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed as not pressed; liberty reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the execution petition or other appropriate legal remedy; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶5

Janak Raj Balhotra Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in a batch of petitions, lead case CWP No.6583 of 2025. +1 more

¶3

Ratio / Principle

No further order is required to be passed in the contempt petition; the matter is closed and the contempt petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶5

Key takeaways

Liberty is 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¶6
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COPC No.506 of 2026 (contempt petition), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — Anita Vohra v. Rakesh Kanwar and others — decided orally on 23.07.2026 by Justice Sushil Kukreja. Respondent No.3 (Baljeet Patial) filed a compliance affidavit recording that the judgment/order passed by this Court (a batch of petitions, lead case CWP No.6583 of 2025) stood duly complied with, attributing any delay initially to the processing time frame at the Sub-Treasury, Kangra and subsequently to the petitioner's own laches in collecting her amount of leave encashment. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the affidavit's averments; the residual controversy was confined to whether the respondents were liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum in terms of the judgment under reference. At the hearing, counsel for the petitioner stated he did not wish to press the contempt petition and sought liberty to pursue an execution petition. The Court passed no further order, closed the matter, dismissed the contempt petition as not pressed, reserved the petitioner's liberty to take recourse to the appropriate legal remedy available under the law including filing of an execution petition, and disposed of pending miscellaneous application(s). The interest question was not adjudicated in this petition.

¶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