NOMINAL INDEX:Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 75Monika v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 76Biogenetic Drugs (P) Ltd. & another v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 77Devi Dass v/s M/s Ginni Global Pvt. Ltd. & another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 78Surinder Chauhan v/s Jai Lal Bragra., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 79Parneet Kumar v/s State of...
NOMINAL INDEX:
Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 75
Monika v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 76
Biogenetic Drugs (P) Ltd. & another v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 77
Devi Dass v/s M/s Ginni Global Pvt. Ltd. & another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 78
Surinder Chauhan v/s Jai Lal Bragra., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 79
Parneet Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 80
Gopal Chand v/s Ramesh Kumar & another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 81
Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 82
Rajesh Kumar Verma v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Madan Kumar v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 83
Deep Raj v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 84
Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 85
State of H.P. & Ors. V/s Jai Ram.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 86
State of H.P. V/s Sukhan Devi (deceased) through LRs.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 87
Dalip Singh & another V/s Khatri Ram & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 88
Shirgul Filling Station V/s Kamal Sharma.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 89
Tejinder Singh V/s Govinder Singh and another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 90
Vijay Kumar V/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 91
Director of Horticulture to the Government of HP V/s Gejam Ram & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 92
Gagandeep Singh and another v. State of H.P. and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 93
Mantesh Kumar v/s Shobha Ram.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 94
Dr. Seema Sharma v/s The Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 95
Aman Chauhan & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 96
Raju Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 97
Rama Devi & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 98
Rishi Raj v/s Ram Krishan & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 99
Amar Nath v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 100
Farooq Ahmad v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 101
Jogindra v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 102
Justice (Retired) V.K. Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 103
Savita Guleria v/s H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 104
Rasham Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 105
State of Himachal Pradesh v/s Sarojioni.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 106
Inderpal Singh v/s Himachal Pradesh Univeristy & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 107
Case Title: Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 75
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State to ensure that transfers are made strictly in accordance with the transfer policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The court emphasised that every government employee should be posted to a difficult area once during their service and that such postings should not be influenced by political relations.
Justice Sandeep Sharma: “Transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh clearly reveals that every employee, during his life career, should be sent to sub cadre/hard/tribal area, but this Court has noticed in many cases that employees having good political relation and influence are hardly sent to hard/tribal area, and employees, who do not have any say in the corridors of Government, are repeatedly sent to hard/tribal areas, which results in heartburn.”
Case Title: Monika v/s State of HP & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 76
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that clubbing the period of stay for the transfer of employees does not violate the State's Transfer Policy or the statutory rules governing transfers. In holding thus, the court overruled an earlier conflicting judgment in Anurag Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “We are at a complete loss to understand how the clubbing of stay for the purpose of transfer of an employee violates the aforesaid provisions as it does not alter the meaning of 'transfer."
Case Title: Biogenetic Drugs (P) Ltd. & another v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 77
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State Drug Controller does not have the authority to issue an Office Order or Standard Operating Procedure, as rule-making power under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act lies exclusively with the Central Government.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel: “In this view of the matter, when the Rule making power is exclusively conferred upon the Central Government and the Central Government has in exercise of the powers so conferred, framed Rules which govern all the activities of manufacturers like the petitioners including the sale of drug manufactured, the Office Order in question which has been issued by the State Drug Controller, bereft of any Authority in law vested in the State Drug Controller to issue the same, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
Case Title: Devi Dass v/s M/s Ginni Global Pvt. Ltd. & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 78
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a Trial Court order which set aside an ex-parte decree, while holding that an ex parte decree can't be set aside merely on the ground of irregularity in service of summons if it is established that the other party had notice of the hearing date and sufficient time to contest the claim.
Justice Satyen Vaidya said: “The second proviso appended to Rule 13 of Order 9 of the Code carves out an exception that no Court shall set-aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.”
Case Title: Surinder Chauhan v/s Jai Lal Bragra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 79
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the death of a landlord's son during the pendency of eviction proceedings does not affect the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction, as the date for assessing such requirement is the date of filing the eviction petition and not during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Court observed that eviction proceedings take time, and the landlord should not suffer because of this. A landlord remains entitled to possession to put their property to better use or settle their family, irrespective of subsequent events, the court said.
Case Title: Parneet Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 80
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an employee can't be arbitrarily denied pension under old scheme when he was transferred through the proper channels and without any break in service.
Justice Satyen Vaidya: “In the facts of the case in hand, petitioner also qualified other condition as he had been transferred to the borrowing employer through proper channel w.e.f. 15.11.2002 when the 1999 Scheme was still in force. His absorption was without any break in service and as such, all the requirements of technical resignation were met.”
Case Title: Gopal Chand v/s Ramesh Kumar & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 81
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that calling a person “Gunda” and accusing him of disturbing the peace and spreading “Gundaraj” without any justification or basis amounts to defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Calling a person Gunda spreading Gundaraj, being a member of Shallow Theatre People without any justification, can be with the intent to harm the reputation of a person”.
Case Title: Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 82
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that individuals who merely use a path or road constructed on a forest do not have locus standi to challenge an eviction order against the encroachers.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua: “Petitioners were not necessary parties to the lis before the Collector Forest. They have no locus standi for assailing the order passed by Collector Forest. Mere user of encroachment over the encroached/broken forest land would not make a person necessary party in the eviction proceedings filed by owner of the land against the culprits.”
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Verma v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Madan Kumar v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 83
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once Judicial officers had participated in a departmental exam for promotion, they were estopped from challenging the rules if they had accepted them when they chose to appear for the exam without any protest.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sandeep Sharma held: “Petitioners are estopped by their act and conduct from assailing the Regulation in question and on this sole ground, petitions deserve to be rejected particularly when the petitioners belong to class of Judicial Officers who are supposed and expected to be well versed with consequences of participating in the selection process without any protest and filing the petitions only after failing in qualifying the written examination.”
Case Title: Deep Raj v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 84
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that stating that a vehicle was being driven at “high speed” is not enough, by itself, to prove rashness or negligence. Speed is a relative term and must be explained with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that the accused was in breach of his duty to take care, which he had failed to do”.
Case Title: Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 85
Reinforcing statutory safeguards for police transfers, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the transfer of a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, holding that such transfers must be made on recommendations of the police establishment committee and the State Government can't bypass this mandatory procedure.
The court said that transfers shall be in accordance with Sections 12 and 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 and should adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Prakash Singh and Others Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2006.
Case Title: State of H.P. & Ors. V/s Jai Ram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 86
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that procedural lapses by the revenue authority cannot defeat substantive rights vested in a party.
The court opined that due to procedural lapses of the revenue authorities in updating records, the petitioner, an Ex-army man, could not be denied his right over a forest land, allotted to him under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968.
Case Title: State of H.P. V/s Sukhan Devi (deceased) through LRs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 87
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a wife's claim of adverse possession after her husband's death, holding that she is entitled to have her name recorded in the revenue records.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “Entries in revenue record reflect that unauthorized possession was very much in the knowledge of State since 1963 and for completion of 30 years of adverse possession without any interruption, interference, objection despite being in knowledge of the Revenue Agency, Gurdass during his life time had right to claim title on the basis of adverse possession and after his death, his adverse possession is heritable. Thus plaintiff is entitled to inherit the encroachment with claim of adverse possession by clubbing the period of possession of her husband since 1963.”
Case Title: Dalip Singh & another V/s Khatri Ram & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 88
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Local Commissioner can't be appointed at the appellate stage merely to help a party gather fresh evidence which it failed to produce or challenge during the trial.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “By appointing a Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the Court is not to be used as a facilitator for collection of evidence in favour or against any party”.
Case Title: Shirgul Filling Station V/s Kamal Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 89
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a complainant fails to prove proprietorship of a sole proprietorship concern, they can't be treated as the payee or holder in due course under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that a mere authority letter issued after the complaint was filed does not constitute sufficient proof of authorisation.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Since in the present case no satisfactory evidence was produced to show that Complainant is the owner of Shirgul Filling Station, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the complainant does not fall within the definition of payee and he was not entitled to file the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act.”
Case Name: Tejinder Singh V/s Govinder Singh and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 90
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a witness's statement made only after seeing documents shown by the police can't be relied upon to uphold a conviction.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The statement of this witness shows that he did not remember the details of the documents, and he made the statement after seeing the documents brought by the police, which means that he was making the statement based on the documents shown to him by the police and not the personal knowledge. Hence, his testimony cannot be relied upon to hold that the agriculturist certificates were annexed to the sale deed.”
Case Name: Vijay Kumar V/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 91
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that oil companies must adopt a flexible approach when minor technical issues with the land offered for distributorship arise, especially when the applicant removes the defect in time.
Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma: “The appellant had also removed the deficiencies as such of the electric wires over the land which is a much larger chunk of land and if the Corporation had kept this aspect in mind, part of the said land could have been utilized as such for the construction of godown.”
Case Name: Director of Horticulture to the Government of HP V/s Gejam Ram & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 92
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has cautioned the State against filing similar appeals in similar matters, as it causes undue harassment to people belonging to the lowest strata of society.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Respondents-State is preferring similar appeals in similar matters again and again, which is not only causing wastage of time, energy and resources of the Court as well as the State, but also resulting into undue harassment to persons, like present petitioner, belonging to lowest strata of the society.”
Case Title: Gagandeep Singh and another v. State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 93
The Himachal Pradesh High Court stated that fake supplier addresses indicate prima facie GST evasion and refused to quash complaint under Section 69 of CGST Act.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla:“When the officials went to the addresses mentioned in the invoices and found that no such entity existed, it was sufficient to infer that the invoices were fake, and the material shown to have been supplied as per the invoices could not have been supplied since no such person existed at the given address”, stated the bench.
Case Name: Mantesh Kumar v/s Shobha Ram
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 94
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a forensic expert's opinion has been brought on record and not been set aside, an accused can't insist on the appointment of another expert just because the existing report is unfavourable.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla said: “Since the report of the Forensic Expert examined by the petitioner is still on record and has not been set aside, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that there was no necessity to send the signatures for comparison to another Forensic Expert.”
Case Name: Dr. Seema Sharma v/s The Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 95
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under the Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022, if the State fails to communicate refusal of an employee's voluntary retirement request within the statutory notice period, the retirement takes effect automatically.
Justice Sandeep Sharma: “In case the authority fails to refuse the permission to retire before expiry of the period specified in the notice, voluntary retirement sought by an employee concerned would come into effect from the date specified in the notice”.
Infrastructure Location Of University Cannot Be Dictated By Students: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Aman Chauhan & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 96
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by students of Sardar Patel University, Mandi, holding that the decision regarding the infrastructure location of the University is to be taken by the State Higher Education Council, Department of Higher Education, along with the Government of Himachal Pradesh, and cannot be dictated by the students.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel said: “This Court again reiterates that where the infrastructure of the Cluster University is to come up is the domain of the respondents and it is not for the petitioners to dictate the respondents as to where they should come up with their infrastructure.”
Case Name: Raju Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 97
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that a Class-III employee, whose services were regularized retrospectively, is entitled to pensionary benefits by counting the qualifying period from the date of retrospective regularization. Further the benefit of judgments granting pension to Class-IV employees can be extended to similarly placed Class-III employees.
Case Name: Rama Devi & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 98
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered an enquiry into a lawyer, after the appellants in an MACT appeal case alleged that their former advocate misused their signatures and fraudulently withdrew accident compensation money.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur said: “Direct the Chairman, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh as well as Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to look into the matter personally and ensure to take complaint/application to its logical end, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner and to communicate the action taken on the complaint to applicant No.1-appellant immediately as well as to this Court through Registrar (Judicial) well before next date of hearing.”
Case Name: Rishi Raj v/s Ram Krishan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 99
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that close family ties do not prevent a valid employer–employee relationship under law if it is supported by credible evidence on record.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed “It has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court that technically there is possibility that husband and wife can have relation of employer and employee. It is apt to notice that relation of husband and wife is more closer than the relation of brother, as both of them being partners of life, in normal circumstances, cannot be expected to work as employee and employer, however, despite that it has been observed by the Supreme Court that such relationship is possible”.
Case Name: Amar Nath v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 100
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a taxi driver cannot be held liable for possession of contraband under the NDPS Act merely because illegal substances were found in the vehicle he was driving, when there is no prima facie evidence showing that he had knowledge or involvement in its transportation.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The status report does not show that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. The material on record is prima facie insufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime; therefore, it cannot be said that he would indulge in the commission of a crime in case of his release on bail.”
Case Name: Farooq Ahmad v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 101
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Farooq Ahmad, who was arrested for allegedly sharing videos on Facebook that contained insulting comments about the Prime Minister of India and the Indian Army.
The Court held that mere sharing of such videos, in the absence of any incitement to violence or public disorder, does not prima facie attract the offences of sedition or promoting enmity.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The video recording of the Facebook posts was played in the Court. They may be in bad taste, but they do not tend to incite any person to violence or create disturbance in public peace. Hence, prima facie, the applicability of Sections 152 and 196 of BNS is highly doubtful.”
Case Name: Jogindra v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 102
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed two connected petitions, holding that the dependents of a Home Guard cannot claim permanent job under the Employment Assistant scheme of the State Government when the Home Guard rendered only a voluntary and temporary job.
Justice Satyen Vaidya held: “Thus, when the job performed by Home Guards has been assessed to be purely of temporary nature, it will not be prudent to hold their dependents entitled to benefit under Compassionate Appointment Scheme. The dependents of a Home Guard cannot raise claim for permanent job, when the Home Guard himself renders only a voluntary and temporary job.”
Case Name: Justice (Retired) V.K. Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 103
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of pension deduction from the salary of a retired judge who was appointed as a tribunal chairman.
The court directed the State to pay arrears along with 9% interest to Justice (retd.) V.K. Sharma, former judge of the High Court, who was later appointed as Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
The Court held that the deduction of pension from the salary of a retired HC judge subsequently appointed as chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (HPAT) is impermissible under law.
Justice Sandeep Sharma said: “Pension is not a bounty or a matter of grace but a vested right earned for the past service rendered. It is social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hay days of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.”
Case Name: Savita Guleria v/s H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 104
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an employee cannot claim the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme by clubbing service in two distinct posts under different cadres when pay scale of the cadres is not in the same range.
Justice Satyen Vaidya said: “The plain reading of aforesaid clarification reveals that though an employee having served different cadres can be held entitled for the benefit of ACP Scheme provided the pay scale in both the cadres was same/identical. Since, in the case of petitioner, her pay scale as Steno-typist in the parent department and as Clerk in the borrowing department was different, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from aforesaid clarification”.
Printed Validity On Caste Certificate Is Insignificant If It Certifies Holder's OBC Status For Specific Financial Year: HP High Court
Case Name: Rasham Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 105
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the printed validity of a period at the top of an OBC certificate becomes irrelevant if the certificate clearly certifies the applicant's OBC status for a specific financial year.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “It is the fact certified in the certificate that is material. If that certification is about status as OBC for a specific period and if the certification regarding the period of OBC status differs from a cyclostyled period, casually mentioned at the top of the certificate, the actual certificate with respect to period of OBC status will take precedence”.
Caste Assigned At Birth Doesn't Change Due To Marriage: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh v/s Sarojioni
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 106
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that caste is assigned at the time of birth and does not change upon marrying a person who belongs to the Scheduled Caste.
It clarified that such a marriage does not preclude the commission of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held: “Therefore, it was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the Caste is assigned to a person at birth and does not change during the lifetime of a person. Therefore, it was wrongly held by the learned Trial Court that the respondent-accused would become a member of the Scheduled Caste after her marriage and she cannot commit an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act.”
Case Name: Inderpal Singh v/s Himachal Pradesh Univeristy & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 107
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that admission to a three-year LLB course without completion of graduation violates the Legal Education Rules, 2008, and the candidate is ineligible for enrolment as an advocate.
Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma said: “In this scenario, once appellant-petitioner had secured admission to the Three Year Law Course (in June 2014) without possessing the essential qualification of Graduation-Bachelor's Degree (which was passed on 27.07.2015). Thus, once for want of Graduation, the admission of the appellant-writ petitioner to LLB Course was bad (being ineligible) therefore, neither any locus nor any right can be said to have accrued to the appellant, an ineligible incumbent, so as to seek enrolment as an advocate, dehors the Rules”