( 2026:HHC:28276 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Contempt Petition No.599 of 2026 Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Kajal Mehta ….Petitioner Versus Ms. Sudha Devi & another ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge(Oral): Learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 07.07.2026 along with copy of Office Order dated 06.07.2026, wherein it has been mentioned that the matter stood reviewed by the duly constituted screening committee. The earlier regularization order dated 11.06.2026 of the petitioner stood further modified and the petitioner stands now allowed all the consequential benefits instead of notional benefits from the date of her regularization vide office order dated 06.07.2026. 2. Therefore, in view of the above, no further order is required to be passed in the present contempt petition and accordingly, the same is closed and disposed of. However, the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 ( 2026:HHC:28276 ) petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as available to her as per law, if she still remains aggrieved. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge July 13, 2026 (reena)

( 2026:HHC:28276 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Contempt Petition No.599 of 2026 Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Kajal Mehta ….Petitioner Versus Ms. Sudha Devi & another ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge(Oral): Learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 07.07.2026 along with copy of Office Order dated 06.07.2026, wherein it has been mentioned that the matter stood reviewed by the duly constituted screening committee. The earlier regularization order dated 11.06.2026 of the petitioner stood further modified and the petitioner stands now allowed all the consequential benefits instead of notional benefits from the date of her regularization vide office order dated 06.07.2026. 2. Therefore, in view of the above, no further order is required to be passed in the present contempt petition and accordingly, the same is closed and disposed of. However, the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 ( 2026:HHC:28276 ) petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as available to her as per law, if she still remains aggrieved. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge July 13, 2026 (reena)