IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 377 of 2011. Decided on: 20.10.2011. Prakash Chand Mishra … Petitioner. Versus Shrikant Baldi … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl .A.G. and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy.A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CWP (T) No. 1979 of 2008 was disposed of by this Court vide judgment, dated 10th March, 2009, which reads as follows:- “ The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of letter dated 9.3.2009. It is evident from this communication that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. In view of this, the petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed having become infructuous. No costs.” - 2 - 2. According to the petitioner, the entire eligible benefits have not been disbursed to the petitioner so far. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the contemner, it appears that the surviving grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the grant of retrospective promotion, at least on notional basis, to the post of Principal w.e.f. 30th April, 1997. It is seen that the Director (Higher Education) had recommended the case of the petitioner to the Government for promotion w.e.f. 30th April, 1997. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General points out that the case of the petitioner will be examined subject to his seniority and the benefits, if any, being retrospective promotion, if found eligible, will be granted to him on notional basis. Be that as it may. This is not a case of contempt, since we do not find any violation of our judgment. But, at the same time, we do not find it necessary to relegate the petitioner to another round of litigation. Hence, this contempt petition is dismissed with a direction to take the judgment, dated 10th March, 2009, to its logical conclusion and grant the eligible benefits to the petitioner in the light of the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General with reference to the recommendation made by the Director (Higher Education) to the Principal Secretary (Education), within two months from the date of production of a copy of this - 3 - judgment by the petitioner before the Principal Secretary (Education). (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice October 20, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (sck/pankaj) Judge.