Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 75 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180

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

Mahesh Thakur v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 108

Sanjay Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 109

United India Insurance Company v/s Sita Devi & Others., United India Insurance Company v/s Joginder Singh & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 110

Archana Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 111

Yashaswini Aggarwal v/s Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 112

Tikender Singh Panwar v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 113

State of H.P. v/s Anu Bala & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 114

Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sen & Others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 115

Punam Gupta and another v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 116

State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 117

V (a juvenile) v/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 118

Sh. Mukhtyar Singh V/s Gyan Singh & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 119

A.Aditya & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 120

Salman Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 121

Dr. Daljit Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 122

Sh. Kishori Lal and another v/s Smt.Darshna Devi., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 123

Abhishek Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 124

State of H.P. V/s Manav Sharma., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 125

Kamini Sharma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 126

Puran Prakash Goel & another v/s Chaman Lal Vaidya., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 127

Smt. Nalini Vidya v/s The Mandi Urban Co-operative Bank Limited., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 128

Krishan Kumar Kasana V/s State of H.P. & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 129

Yog Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 130

Digvijay Singh V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 131

Nek Singh Dogra State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 132

Sant Ram v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 133

Hoshiar Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 134

Susheela Rana V/s State of H.P & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 135

Smt. Ganga Jogta v/s Shri Nand Lal (deceased) through his legal heirs.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 136

Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Associate & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 137

Suleman V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 138

Sh. Balbir Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 139

State of H.P. v/s Ghambo Devi.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 140

Rishi Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 141

Chet Ram versus The State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 142

Adil V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 143

Manish Dharmaik V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 144

Nathu v/s National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 145

Raj Kumar & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 146

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v/s Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 147

H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority vs Roop Lal Verma & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 148

State of H.P. v/s Mam Raj.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 149

Union of India v/s Mahanti Devi and another, State of H.P. v/s Mahanti Devi and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 150

Khelo Ram V/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 151

Sanjay K. Maanav v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 152

Tulsi Ram v/s Mustaq Qureshi.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 153

Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 154

Jagat Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 155

Datta Ram and others v/s United India Insurance Company Limited.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 156

Nitin Gupta v Arrpit Aggarwal.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 157

Bir Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 158

State of H.P. v/s Hari Saran.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 159

Sachin Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors..,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 160

Vishwa Nath Sharma & others v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 161

State of H.P. v/s Ram Pal.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 162

Mangat Ram (deceased) through his Lrs. Namely Tarsem Lal and others V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 163

State of H.P. v/s Rajika Gupta.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 164

Tidj Mamane @ Tidy Mamane V/s State of H.P. & Anr.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 165

Anand Swarup v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 166

Bhutto Ram V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 167

Mahesh Ram V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 168

Vidya & Ors v/s Vinita & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 169

Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 170

Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 171

Sh. Rajinder Singh Thakur & another v/s Sh. Dhaminder Kunmar Chadha.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 172

State of H.P. v/s Sunil Khan.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 173

Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Orange Business Service India Technology Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 174

Shiv Raj V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 175

State of H.P. v/s Chander Sharma & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176

Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh .,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 177

Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 178

Smt. Asha Rani V/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 179

State of H.P. v/s Rajesh Kumar.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180

'Govt Employees With Political Connections Not Being Given Hard/Tribal Postings Despite State's Transfer Policy': HP High Court

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.”

Clubbing Stay Of Employee At Different Postings For Transfer Purposes Doesn't Violate Definition Of “Transfer” Under State Rules: HP High Court

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."

Drugs & Cosmetics Act | 'Rule-Making Power Lies Only With Centre': HP High Court Quashes SOPs By State Drug Controller

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.”

Ex-Parte Decree Can't Be Set Aside For Mere Irregularity In Serving Summons If Party Had Enough Time To Contest It: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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.”

Bonafide Requirement Must Be Seen On Date Of Initiation Of Eviction Process, Not During Pendency Of Proceedings: HP High Court

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.

CCS Pension Rules | Pension Can't Be Arbitrarily Denied To Employees Under Old Scheme Who Were Transferred Without Break In Service: HP High Court

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.”

Calling A Person 'Gunda', Alleging 'Gunda Raj' Without Justification Amounts To Defamation: HP High Court Convicts Chief Editor Of Newspaper

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”.

Mere Use Of Encroached Forest Land Does Not Make Person Necessary Party In Eviction Proceedings Filed By Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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.”

HP HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Rules Of Judicial Promotion Exam, Says Judicial Officers Should've Known Consequences Of Participating Without Protest

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.”

[Road Accident] “High Speed” Is A Relative Term, Accused Can't Be Held Guilty Solely Based On Speed: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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”.

State Cannot Transfer Police Officers Without Recommendation By Police Establishment Committee: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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.

Procedural Lapses By Revenue Authorities Can't Defeat Substantive Rights Under Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules: High Court

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.

'Adverse Possession Is A Heritable Right': Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Widow's Claim After Husband's Death

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.”

Local Commissioner Can't Be Appointed To Collect Fresh Evidence At Appellate Stage: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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”.

S.138 NI Act | When No Evidence Is Led To Prove Proprietorship, Complainant Can't Be Treated As Payee: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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.”

Witness Statements Made From Documents Supplied By Police Can't Be Relied Upon For Conviction: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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.”

Oil Companies Must Adopt Flexible Approach While Taking Land From Distributors If Defects Are Cured: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cautions State Against Filing Repeated Appeals In Similar Matters, Causing Undue Harassment To Poor Litigants

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.”

[S.69 CGST Act] Fake Supplier Addresses Indicate Prima Facie GST Evasion: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refuses To Quash Complaint

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.

S.138 NI Act | Another Forensic Expert Can't Be Appointed Till First Expert's Report On Signature Has Been Set Aside: HP High Court

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.”

Voluntary Retirement Takes Effect Automatically If State Fails To Decline It Within Notice Period: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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.”

Retrospective Regularization Of Class-III Employees Counts For Pension Benefits In line with Precedents Applicable To Class-IV : Himachal Pradesh HC

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.

HP High Court Orders Inquiry Into Lawyer For Allegedly Withdrawing MACT Compensation By Misusing Client's Signature

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.”

Insurance Company Can't Deny Compensation Citing Invalid Employer-Employee Relationship Between Family Members Without Evidence: HP High Court

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”.

NDPS Act | Mere Presence Of Contraband In Taxi Doesn't Prove Driver's Guilt: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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.”

'Maybe In Bad Taste, But Do Not Incite Violence': HP HC Grants Bail To Man Charged U/S152 BNS For Sharing Videos Allegedly Insulting PM, Army

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.”

Home Guards Are Volunteers, Their Dependents Cannot Claim Compassionate Employment: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Deduction Of Retired Judge's Pension From His Salary As Tribunal Chairman

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.”

Govt Employees Cannot Claim Assured Career Progression By Clubbing Service In Two Different Posts If Pay Scale Is Different: HP High Court

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.”

'Took Admission In 3-Yr LLB Course Without Completing Graduation': HP High Court Denies Student's Plea For Enrolment As Advocate

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”

NDPS Act | Not Permissible To Detain Person On Presumption That Blood Sample May Indicate Presence Of Heroin: HP High Court Grants Bail

Case Name: Mahesh Thakur v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 108

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a person cannot be kept in custody merely on the assumption that the blood sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory might reveal traces of heroin or that some incriminating substance would be found.

Denying the State's submission that blood samples sent by the police to forensics were likely to indicate the presence of heroin, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked: “A person cannot be detained in custody based on the assumption that some incriminating substance would be found against him. The police have to connect the person with the commission of a crime before his detention can be justified.”

HP Land Revenue Act | Financial Commissioner Can't Interfere With Order Set Aside By District Collector Without Declaring It Illegal: High Court

Case Name: Sanjay Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 109

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order passed by the Financial Commissioner, holding that he had exceeded his jurisdiction by relying on irrelevant and non-existent material and by interfering with the Collector's decision without declaring any legal infirmity or perversity.

Setting aside the decision of the Financial Commissioner, Justice Satyen Vaidya held that“The Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order has exceeded his jurisdiction by basing his opinion on irrelevant and non-existent material and also by interfering with the order of District Collector without declaring it to be illegal or perverse.”

Overloading Passenger Vehicle Did Not Lead To Accident, Not A Breach Of Policy: HP High Court Directs Insurance Company To Pay Compensation

Case Name: United India Insurance Company v/s Sita Devi & Others., United India Insurance Company v/s Joginder Singh & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 110

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that overloading of a passenger vehicle is not a violation or fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy unless it is related to the cause of the accident.

Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 which held that the breach on the part of the insured must show that the accident or damage that occurred was due to the breach.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked: “So far as overloading of one extra person is concerned, it is not a violation or fundamental breach of the terms of the policy having consequences of absolving Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner to pay the compensation in an accident, particularly when overloading of one person is not related to cause of the accident”.

CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 | Maternity Leave For Third Child Can't Be Denied If First Two Children Were Born Before Joining Service: HP High Court

Case Name: Archana Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 111

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that if two children of a government servant were born before joining government service and the third child is born after joining service, maternity leave under Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 can't be denied.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “petitioner herein had given birth to two children prior to her induction in service but her prayer to grant her maternity leave, though may be qua third child of her during service, came to be made for first time. If it is so, prayer made on her behalf for grant of maternity leave deserves to be allowed.

'Meritorious Students Don't Deserve Such Treatment': HP High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On School Board For Denying Merit Certificate

Case Name: Yashaswini Aggarwal v/s Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 112

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that it is the duty of the school education board to issue a merit certificate to a candidate after their marks are increased in the revaluation process, and it cannot shift the onus onto the school authorities.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The petitioner cannot be denied the merit certificate arbitrarily just on the grounds as are propagated by the respondent- Board in its reply. The meritorious students do not deserve such treatment. Rather than rewarding her excellence, the respondent- Board has forced her to knock the doors of justice which is not appreciated”.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Seeks Status Report On Safety Of 140-Year-Old Underground Water Tank At Shimla Ridge

Case Name: Tikender Singh Panwar v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 113

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has sought a status report on the safety of the 140-year-old underground water tank at Shimla Ridge.

A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma issued notices and sought a status report from the State Government and the Municipal Corporation of Shimla on the structural safety of the 140-year-old underground water tank situated beneath the historic Ridge.

HP High Court Denies Relief To Cops Accused Of Outraging Woman's Modesty, Says State Can't Protect Them From Probe By Filing Revision Plea

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Anu Bala & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 114

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State cannot challenge a court's direction for investigation merely because the proposed accused are government servants.

The Court emphasised that, as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, every individual is entitled to equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. Thus, the Court held that “the State cannot discriminate between the Government employees and ordinary citizens by protecting a person against whom an offence has been alleged and investigation has been directed”.

Dismissing the Criminal revision petition filed by the State, Justice Virender Singh observed that: “Merely, since, the proposed accused persons are Government servants, will not give an authority to the State to assail the order, passed by the learned trial Court, against the proposed accused persons, by way of filing the Criminal Revision, before this Court”.

Providing Sewerage Connections Is Statutory Duty Of Municipal Council, Consent Of Property Owners Not Required: HP High Court

Case Name: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sen & Others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 115

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under Section 141 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, it is the duty of the Municipal Council to provide sewerage connections, and it cannot withhold this service merely due to objections from private landowners.

Rejecting the contention of Municipal Council, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that: “There is no statutory requirement that the Council has to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the person from whose property the sewerage line is to pass. In case, Section 141 of the Act is interpreted as such, then the Municipal Authorities would not be able to provide majority of the residents' sewerage connection and the Section will become otiose.”

HP High Court Declares S. 163-A HP Land Revenue Act As Unconstitutional; Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Govt Land By Feb 28, 2026

Case Name: Punam Gupta and another v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 116

In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (August 5) declared Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1952, which empowered the State Government to frame rules for regularisation of encroachments on government land, as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

In its order, a Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed that the impugned provision is a 'legislation for a class of dishonest persons' which seeks to regularize all illegal encroachments, and thus, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

State Can't Recover Overpaid Salaries After 5 Yrs, In Absence Of Misrepresentation From Workers: HP High Court Aids Class-III Workers

Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 117

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 36 LPAs filed by the state, holding that the recovery of overpaid salaries after 5 years cannot be made from class-III workers, when there was no misrepresentation on the part of the workers.

Upholding the finding of the Single bench, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma held that: “since the petitioners are Class-III employees and the recovery sought to be effected, pertains to the amount erroneously paid to them more than five years ago, the same is impermissible in law.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds JJB's Decision To Try 16-Yr-Old As An Adult For Alleged Rape Of 7-Yr-Old Girl

Case Name: V (a juvenile) v/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 118

In the alleged rape of a 7 year old girl by a 16 year old boy, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that preliminary assessment conducted by the Medical Board in accordance with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 found that that the accused had an IQ of 92 and was fully aware of the consequences of his acts as he had threatened the victim and told her to not disclose the incident to anyone.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that “ the Medical Board was to assess the mental capacity of petitioner, which it had assessed and found the petitioner's IQ to be 92; therefore, the mere fact that the documents were not forwarded to the Medical Board cannot lead to an interference that the report issues by the Medical Board was bad."

Order 7 Rule 14 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Seek Production Of Documents That Inadvertently Remained In Counsel's Brief: HP High Court

Case Name: Sh. Mukhtyar Singh V/s Gyan Singh & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 119

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the plea that documents were inadvertently left in the counsel's brief is not a valid ground to invoke the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Rejecting the Contention of the Petitioner Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “These pleas are no reasons to invoke the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions have been provided in the Statute to advance the cause of justice and not to throttle the wheel of justice as apparently is the intent of the petitioner.”

Beas River Tragedy | HP High Court Upholds Criminal Negligence Charges Against Faculty Members Over Death Of Students On College Trip

Case Name: A.Aditya & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 120

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by the faculty members of VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology, over the death of several students on a college trip in the Beas River tragedy, holding that the faculty members were fully aware that the students were likely to die, yet they did not stop the students from entering the riverbed.

Justice Virender Singh noted that: “The alleged rash and negligent act of the accused is causa causans of the incident, which has rightly been held to be the question of law and facts, by the learned trial Court which will be proved during the course of trial.”

HP High Court Directs Police To Consider Protection Plea By Young Muslim Couple, Including Minor Girl, Over Threats Faced Due To Marriage

Case Name: Salman Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 121

The Himachal Pradesh High Court division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma has directed the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur, and the Station House Officer concerned to consider protection request of the 20-year-old petitioner and his 17 year old wife and take appropriate action after they got married without their family's permission.

The court relied on the Supreme Court case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P., 2006, which protects the right of consenting individuals to marry and live together without unlawful interference.

Govt Employee Who Acquires Benchmark Disability During Service Can Extend Retirement Age Even If Not Appointed Under PwD Quota: HP High Court

Case Name: Dr. Daljit Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 122

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a government employee who acquires benchmark disability during service is entitled to the benefit of extended retirement age under the State's policy, even if he was not appointed under the handicapped quota.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “Merely because a person suffers disability in service, offers no valid ground to discriminate him vis-a-vis the person, who was physically disabled and had been inducted into service under handicapped quota for purposes of fixing retirement age.”

Court Cannot Direct Police To Ascertain Actual On-Ground Situation In Application For Police Assistance: HP High Court

Case Name: Sh. Kishori Lal and another v/s Smt.Darshna Devi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 123

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a court, while deciding an application for police assistance, can only grant or refuse such assistance for implementing its order and cannot direct police officers to ascertain the actual situation on the spot.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “….by no stretch of imagination in such an application, the Court can direct an Officer or Official of a Department, may be the Police Department, to visit the spot and ascertain the actual situation on the spot, as has been done in the present case by the learned Court below.”

HP High Court Denies Bail To Accused In ₹500 Crore Crypto Fraud, Says Public Interest Must Be Considered In Cases Involving Grave Economic Offences

Case Name: Abhishek Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 124

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has denied bail to the accused involved in a ₹500-Crore Cryptocurrency Fraud Case, holding that economic offences of such huge magnitude, which have a deep-rooted conspiracy and cause massive public loss, must be viewed seriously, and mere prolonged custody or trial delay is not a sufficient ground for bail.

Rejecting the Bail Application, Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “The economic offences are considered grave offences as they affect the economy of the country and such offences are to be viewed seriously. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and the State”.

When Purpose Of Police Remand Is Clearly Stated, Trial Court Can't Dictate Manner Of Probe: HP High Court Quashes Adverse Remarks Against Cops

Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Manav Sharma

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 125

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside orders of a trial court, that refused policy custody of an accused in a communal violence case and also expunged adverse remarks made by the trial court that branded the investigation as “myopic” and “mala fide.”

Setting aside the Trial Court's order Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “The purpose, for which, the police remand has been sought, has specifically been mentioned and to investigate the matter, is the sole prerogative of the police. The Court cannot issue direction to the police not to investigate the matter, in a particular manner”.

Maternity Leave Sanctioned During Contractual Service Cannot Be Curtailed Due To Submission Of Fitness Certificate During Regularisation: HP HC

Case Name: Kamini Sharma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 126

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that maternity leave, sanctioned while an employee was on contractual service, could not be curtailed merely because she submitted a medical fitness certificate at the time of regularization. 

Quashing the State's order that cancelled the leave Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that : “submission of Medical Fitness Certificate, could not have given any right to the respondents to curtail the Maternity Leave of the petitioner granted to her w.e.f. 21.8.2021, for a period of 180 days.”

Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can't Be Rejected Due To Missing Khasra Numbers In Eviction Petition: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Puran Prakash Goel & another v/s Chaman Lal Vaidya

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 127

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the omission of certain khasranumbers in an eviction petition does not amount to non-disclosure of cause of action and cannot be a ground for dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rejecting the tenant's contention, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Mere non-mention of certain khasra numbers per se cannot be so fatal so as to throw the petitioners in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the count that the petition did not disclose any cause of action.”

HP Co-Operative Societies Act | No One Can Be Condemned Unheard, Even If Act Does Not Have Provisions For Filing Objections: High Court

Case Name: Smt. Nalini Vidya v/s The Mandi Urban Co-operative Bank Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 128

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that even if the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, does not have specific provisions for filing objections in execution proceedings, the principles of natural justice must apply and the judgement debtor must be given an opportunity to be heard.

Setting aside the order of Collector-cum-Deputy Registrar, Mandi Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “the findings returned by the Authority that as the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act and Rules do not provide for filing of any objections in the course of deciding the execution proceedings, no objections can be entertained, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The mechanism of natural justice is inbuilt and inherent and no one can be condemned unheard.”

Taking Photographs Of A Woman Doesn't Satisfy Definition Of Stalking U/S 78 Of BNS: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Krishan Kumar Kasana V/s State of H.P. & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 129

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to an industrialist, who was accused of allegedly taking photographs of the wife of a regional officer of the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board in an attempt to intimidate him.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, the allegations in the complaint do not show that the petitioner had followed the informant's wife and contacted her to foster personal interaction. The only allegation is that the petitioner had taken the photographs of the informant's wife, Prima facie these allegations do not satisfy the definition of stalking,”

Mere Pendency Of FIR For Minor Offences Can't Be A Ground To Deny Compassionate Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Yog Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 130

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the pendency of an FIR, particularly for petty offences, cannot be a valid reason to withhold compassionate appointment already approved by the competent authority.

Justice Sandeep Sharma observed: “Till the time charge is not framed against the accused and he is not convicted by a competent Court of law, he is deemed to be innocent. If it is so, denial of appointment on the ground of mere pendency of FIR, that too for petty offences, may not be sustainable.”

NDPS Act | Non-Production Of Seal Used To Secure Recovered Contraband Does Not Vitiate NDPS Trial: HP High Court

Case Name: Digvijay Singh V/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 131

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prosecution case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot be rejected merely because the seal used for sealing the recovered contraband was not produced before the Trial Court.

Rejecting the contention of the accused, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “There is unchallenged and trustworthy evidence that the case property was not tampered with at any stage, the non-production of the seals used for sealing and re-sealing of the bulk case property or the samples is also of no help to the accused.”

Employee Cannot Seek Promotion Merely Based On Eligibility, When Dept Promotion Committee Was Not Convened Before His Retirement: HP High Court

Case Name: Nek Singh Dogra State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 132

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an employee cannot claim promotion merely on the ground that he was found eligible, where the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened only after his retirement.

The Court further stated that there is no vested right to promotion after superannuation in the absence of any mala fide delay on the part of the competent authority.

Rejecting the writ petition Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held: “The petitioner does not have any vested right to seek promotion only on the basis of his name having been found to be eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I. Since, the petitioner had superannuated prior to the convening of DPC, he cannot be granted promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I”.

CCS Rules | Once Employee's Study Leave Is Sanctioned, State Can't Reduce Salary Based On Subsequent Amendment: HP High Court

Case Name: Sant Ram v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 133

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once an employee was given study leave for pursuing a three-year LLB Degree course, he became entitled to full leave salary in terms of the unamended Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules.

The Court clarified that the subsequent amendment, which reduced the leave salary to 40% could not be applied retrospectively to a leave that had already been sanctioned.

Rejecting the State's contention Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua stated that “Petitioner had applied for study leave through proper channel and the Government had sanctioned study leave in his favour on 01.09.2023, i.e. prior to the issuance of Finance Department's notification dated 07.08.2024, hence, the petitioner is eligible for 100% leave salary during the sanctioned study leave for pursuing three years LLB Degree Course”

Punishment Involving Loss Of Service Benefits Can Be Imposed Only Upon Proof Of Misconduct: HP High Court

Case Name: Hoshiar Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 134

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that disciplinary punishment involving civil consequences, such as forfeiture of service benefits, must be based on clear proof of misconduct or dereliction of duty.

Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The petitioner could be visited with civil and evil consequences of punishment only on proof of any misconduct or dereliction of duty on his part, but since the punishment has been sought to be imposed without proof of any incriminating circumstance against petitioner, such a perverse action cannot be sustained.”

Welfare State Must Be Impartial, Cannot Be "Touchy" When Employees Approach Court For Rightful Claim: HP High Court

Case Name: Susheela Rana V/s State of H.P & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 135

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has extended the retirement age of a government college professor, and held that a welfare State is expected to act fairly and without bias, and can't penalise an employee merely because she approached the Court for enforcement of her lawful rights.

Noting the conduct of college Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “State being 'welfare State' is expected to work impartially without there being any bias, but it seems that the respondents have become very touchy about the action of petitioner in as much as she approached this court, for her rightful claim”.

Legal Representatives Of Deceased Judgement Debtor Who Was Proceeded Against Ex Parte Can Be Brought On Record: HP High Court

Case Name: Smt. Ganga Jogta v/s Shri Nand Lal (deceased) through his legal heirs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 136

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in execution proceedings, if a judgment debtor was proceeded against ex parte and subsequently died, his legal representatives must still be brought on record.

Rejecting the contention of the plaintiff, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Simply because, the only judgment-debtor was proceeded against ex- parte, this does not gives any right to the petitioner not to bring on record his legal representatives after his death”.

Teachers In Himachal Cannot Claim Parity Of Pay With Punjab Teachers Merely Because HP Follows Punjab Pay Commission: HP High Court

Case Name: Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Associate & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 137

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Association and others, seeking parity in pay scales with their counterparts in Punjab, holding that the State of Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the pay pattern of the State of Punjab in its entirety, even though it follows the Punjab Pay Commission.

Rejecting the faculty's contention Justice Satyen Vaidya held that: “The mere fact that the State of Himachal Pradesh has been following Punjab's pay pattern does not mean it has bound itself to follow such pay pattern for all intents and purposes,”

Merely Posting 'Pakistan Zindabad' On Facebook Without Denouncing India Is Not Sedition U/S 152 BNS: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Suleman V/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 138

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a street vendor who was accused of sharing an AI-generated image of the Prime Minister with the caption “Pakistan Zindabad” on Facebook. 

The Court remarked that merely praising another country without speaking against India does not amount to sedition as it does not encourage rebellion, violence, or separatist activities.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated that: “Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition because it does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.”

HP High Court Orders Regularisation Of Class-IV Employee After 20 Years Of Service; Imposes ₹50K Cost On State For Repeated Denial Of Claim

Case Name: Sh. Balbir Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 139

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered the regularisation of a Class-IV employee after 20 years of service. The court imposed a ₹50,000 cost on the state as it repeatedly denied the claim of the employee, despite repeated directions from the court.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Since petitioner herein was repeatedly compelled by respondents to approach this Court for his rightful claim, coupled with the fact that despite repeated clarifications and directions issued by learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court, respondents failed to comply with the earlier directions… it is a fit case where cost amounting to ₹50,000 should be imposed upon the respondents. Ordered accordingly.”

Person Cannot Be Held Liable For Encroachment U/S 33 Of Indian Forest Act Without Notification Of Reserved Forest: HP High Court

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Ghambo Devi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 140

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a chargesheet does not mention any notification to specify that the encroachment land was a reserved forest, a person cannot be held liable under the Indian Forest Act.

Relying on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh high court in State of H.P. V/s Ami Chand, 1992, held that A person cannot be held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in the absence of any notification and its due publication.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that: “The charge sheet does not mention that any notification was issued that the forest where the encroachment was made was a reserved forest”.

Minor Girl's Claim Of Being 18+ Or Aadhar Showing Her As Major Doesn't Help Case Of Accused Booked Under POCSO Act: HP High Court

Case title - Rishi Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 141

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently observed that a minor girl's representation of herself as being above 18 years of age or an Aadhar card entry showing her as a major cannot help an accused facing charges under the POCSO Act.

A bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla thus rejected an accused's regular bail plea, who is facing charges of offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused In Commercial Quantity Case Over Non-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest

Case Title: Chet Ram versus The State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 142

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted interim bail in a commercial quantity NDPS case, holding that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the accused.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: “Prima facie, the plea taken by the accused that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him appears to be correct and is supported by the memo of arrest. No contrary document was filed by the State showing that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner.”

POCSO Act | Accused Cannot Be Denied Bail Merely Because Victims Were Traumatised: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Adil V/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 143

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to four accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that bail cannot be denied merely on the ground that the victims would be traumatised.

Noting the submission of the State, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “There is a force in the submission made on behalf of the respondent/State that the victims would be traumatised by the acts of the petitioners. However, that is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners”.

Divisional Commissioner Does Not Have The Power To Review An Already Decided Appeal: HP High Court

Case Name: Manish Dharmaik V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 144

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to reopen and rehear an appeal once it has been finally decided.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “There is no power vested in the Divisional Commissioner to suo moto again revive an appeal which has been decided by it earlier in exercise of its quasi-judicial power.”

Land Acquisition Act | Benefits Under Rehabilitation Scheme Can Be Provided Only If Name Is In Panchayat Register During Acquisition: HP HC

Case Name: Nathu v/s National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 145

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition, holding that benefits of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be granted when there is no entry in the Panchayat's Parivar register during the time of land acquisition.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that: “One fact which is evident… is that as on the date when the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2000, his name was not registered in the Panchayat Parivar Register of the village concerned, which is a pre-condition for the purpose of getting the benefit of the Scheme in terms of Clause 2.2.3 of the same.”

HP Co-Operative Societies Rules | Mere Passing Of Election Resolution Not Equivalent To Initiation Of Electoral Process: High Court

Case Name: Raj Kumar & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 146

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that, as per Rule 38 of the HP Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971, the outgoing managing committee of the society is bound to initiate the election process at least 90 days prior to completion of its tenure.

The Court clarified that merely passing a resolution does not amount to the initiation of the election process. 

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Passing of this resolution 90 days before expiry of terms of the outgoing Managing Committee, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be initiation of election process”

Pre-Institution Mediation Is Mandatory When Plaint Is Filed U/S 12A Of Commercial Courts Act Unless Genuine Urgency Exists: HP High Court

Case Name: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v/s Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 147

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a plaint is filed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the plaintiff cannot bypass the mandatory pre-institution mediation unless the relief sought is urgent.

The Court remarked that a commercial suit filed without undergoing pre-institution mediation, in cases where no genuine urgency exists, must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

After perusing the plaint Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that: “……there is no whisper in the application as to what necessitated the plaintiffs to seek urgent relief, by bypassing the statutory provisions of Section 12A of the Act”

Promotional Benefits Can't Be Denied Post-Retirement If Juniors Were Promoted Earlier: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Name : H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority vs Roop Lal Verma & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 148

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that an employee cannot be denied the benefit of promotion and consequential benefits merely on the ground of retirement, if his juniors were promoted and regularized during his service tenure.

'Love Letters Sent By Victim To Accused Are 'Pure Reflections' Of Her Feelings': HP High Court Upholds Acquittal In Rape Case

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Mam Raj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 149

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the person who was punished for offences under Sections 504, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court held that even though in cases of rape, the evidence by the victim must be given predominant consideration, it cannot be believed if the testimony of the victim is inconsistent and contradictory to the record.

After going through the evidence on record Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kureja Noted that: “The perusal of love letters, nowhere reflects that the same were written by the prosecutrix under any kind of pressure. In fact, these letters are pure reflection of feelings of the prosecutrix towards the accused”.

Bureaucrats Must Realise That Benefits Received By Them Are Possible Due To Freedom Fighters: HP High Court On Denial Of Pension To Widow

Case Name: Union of India v/s Mahanti Devi and another, State of H.P. v/s Mahanti Devi and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 150

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh against the widow of a freedom fighter seeking pension.

The Court held that despite repeated reminders by the Supreme Court regarding the purpose of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme the state authorities continued to deny pension on untenable grounds.

A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “However, on the ground a different bureaucratic mindset is engrained so deep that it is hard for them to shake-off and realise that the benefits they are receiving while holding such offices, are only on account of the fact that the Freedom Fighters are responsible for their State of Affairs at this present point of time”.

Human Teeth Are Not A 'Deadly Weapon' Under Section 324 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Khelo Ram V/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 151

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has partly allowed a revision petition, holding that human teeth are not considered as a “deadly weapon” under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated: “………injury caused by teeth does not fall within the purview of Section 324 of the IPC . Hence, the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.”

Keeping Unlicensed Medicines On Clinic Rack Amounts To “Offer For Sale”, Violates S.27 Of Drugs & Cosmetics Act: HP High Court

Case Name: Sanjay K. Maanav v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 152

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that stocking allopathic medicines without a valid license and keeping them on the racks of the clinic amounted to an “offer for sale” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and violates section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which prescribes punishment for selling drugs without a valid license.

Rejecting the contention of the accused that mere possession is not an offence till there is direct proof of sale, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “the drugs were found on the rack inside the clinic and learned Trial Court had rightly held that this violated Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act”.

Pension Is Not A Perpetual Income, Cannot Override Bonafide Need Of Premises By Landlord's Family: HP High Court

Case Name: Tulsi Ram v/s Mustaq Qureshi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 153

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pension income cannot substitute a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises to settle his son in business.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Income of pension is also not a perpetual income and after death of landlord, his family members including his younger son shall not be entitled for any pension”.

Married Daughter Can't Be Excluded From Family For Purpose Of Compassionate Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 154

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and family income has to be calculated including them as well.

Quoting Rakesh Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2022, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Noted that: “Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father… this Court is of the considered view that the annual family income of the deceased in the present case has to be assessed by considering the strength of the family to be four…”

Retired Class-IV Employee Not Expected To Understand Terms Like 'Acquiescence' Or 'Delay': HP High Court Quashes Pension Rejection Order

Case Name: Jagat Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 155

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the pension rejection order of a daily wage beldar worker, holding that pension cannot be denied on the ground that of delay in filing claim as a class IV cannot be expected to understand technical legal concepts like acquiescence or laches, and pension is a recurring right that cannot be defeated by delay.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Class-IV employee like petitioner cannot be expected to know the very meaning of acquiescence and as such, plea of delay and laches sought to be raised deserves to be rejected, especially when pension is recurring cause of action”.

12-Year Limitation Rule Applies To Execution Petitions U/S 174 Of Motor Vehicles Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Datta Ram and others v/s United India Insurance Company Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 156

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that execution petitions filed by insurance companies under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for recovery of compensation, are subject to the twelve years limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The findings returned by the learned Court below that an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act can be filed at any time and there is no limitation for moving such application because there is no limitation for filing a claim petition for the grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act in the facts of this case are not sustainable”.

Closure Of Partnership Activities Till Dissolution Of Firm Cannot Be Granted As Interim Relief U/S 9 Of A&C Act: HP High Court

Case Title – Nitin Gupta v Arrpit Aggarwal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 157

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has observed that an interim relief petition under Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) claiming closure of business and manufacturing activities of the partnership business cannot be granted when the principal dispute pertains to the business activities of that partnership. Granting such a relief would amount to the destruction of the subject matter of arbitration and would defeat the very intent and purpose behind the aforesaid section.

Promotion Can't Be Denied When Criminal Case Is Pending Without Chargesheet Being Framed: HP High Court

Case Name: Bir Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 158

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pendency of a criminal case, where no charge sheet has been filed, cannot be a ground to deny promotion to an employee exonerated of all charges in the departmental inquiry.

Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “Admittedly no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner. Though the Magistrate concerned is well within his/her right to order further investigation, such fact, if any, cannot be a ground for the respondents to deny promotion to the higher post, especially when charge has not been framed till date,”

Mere Recovery Of Money From Accused Does Not Amount To Bribery In Absence Of Demand: HP High Court

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Hari Saran

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 159

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a Forest Officer who was accused of demanding and accepting a Rs 3000 bribe.

The Court held that mere possession of tainted currency notes cannot constitute bribery unless there is proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification.

After going through the evidence, Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that: “In the absence of demand of any illegal gratification and acceptance thereof, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused.”

Prisoners Should Be Allowed To Solve Family's Problems, Maintain Link With Society: HP High Court Grants Parole

Case Name: Sachin Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 160

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that maintaining family and social ties is important for prisoners, and that parole should be allowed to them to attend to their personal and family responsibilities.

Justice Virender Singh held that “Mere registration of the FIR cannot be made basis to decline parole to the petitioner, as, the prisoners should be allowed to maintain their family and social ties. They should also be given an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society.”

Fairly Determined Compensation For Land Acquisition Must Also Be Given To Land Owners Who Didn't Approach Court: HP High Court

Case Name: Vishwa Nath Sharma & others v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 161

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once a fair rate of compensation for land acquisition has been decided, its benefit must be extended to all landowners affected by the same acquisition.

The Court held that denying such benefits to some landowners merely because they did not approach the court amounts to discrimination.

Rejecting the State's reasoning, the Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined which can become a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the Court, the act of the respondents of not giving this benefit to the petitioners is arbitrary, discriminatory and not sustainable in the eyes of law”.

Mere Usage Of Term “High Speed” By Witness Is Insufficient To Establish Rash Or Negligent Driving: HP High Court

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Ram Pal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 162

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a mere statement by a witness that the accused was driving the vehicle at 'high speed' is not sufficient to establish negligence.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: "Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on the statement of a witness that he was driving the vehicle at a high speed, and the prosecution has to establish specific negligence of the accused."

Court Cannot Shy Away From Duty To Decide Case On Merits Until Formal Dismissal Order Is Passed: HP High Court

Case Name: Mangat Ram (deceased) through his Lrs. Namely Tarsem Lal and others V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 163

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a plaintiff has the right to continue a suit until a formal judicial order of withdrawal is passed. It further remarked that merely filing an application or making a statement about compromise and withdrawal does not, by itself, amount to dismissal of the case.

Rejecting the Trial Court's reasoning, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that:“The Court cannot force the plaintiff to withdraw a case, simply because at an earlier stage the plaintiff might have filed such an application or even may have recorded his or her statement… The Court cannot shy away and shun its duty to decide the case on merit.”

Benefit Of Probation Can't Be Given To Those Guilty Of Causing Death By Rash Or Negligent Driving: HP High Court

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Rajika Gupta

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 164

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, cannot be granted to a person convicted of causing death by rash and negligent driving under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Virender Singh noted that “…..it has constantly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, should not be given to the person, who has been convicted for the offence for causing death, due to the rash and negligent driving.”

Mere Foreign Nationality Of Accused Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Bail Under NDPS Act: HP High Court

Case Name: Tidj Mamane @ Tidy Mamane V/s State of H.P. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 165

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the mere foreign nationality of an individual cannot be a ground to deny bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “…this Court cannot make a distinction for granting or denying bail, merely on the ground of being a citizen or non-citizen coupled with the fact that the authenticity of the Passport submitted to the police is a matter of trial under the Foreigners Act.”

Teaching Certificate Issued By School Principal Cannot Be Ignored Merely Because Appointment Was Without State's Permission: HP High Court

Case Name: Anand Swarup v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 166

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that teaching experience certificates issued by Principals of Government Schools cannot be ignored merely on technical grounds, such as the appointment being made on Parent Teacher Association basis without government permission.

Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that “Important factor was possession of teaching certificate, if any, of Government/ Semi Government Organization. Once Principal of Government Senior Secondary School issued certificate, certifying therein that petitioner herein worked in School for more than three years, question of his appointment in school without permission, if any, of government, may not be of any relevance.”

Accidentally Shooting Another Person Believing Him To Be Wild Animal Amounts To Negligence, Not Murder: HP High Court

Case Name: Bhutto Ram V/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 167

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an accidental shooting of a person, believing him to be a wild animal, amounts to death caused by negligence under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and not the offence of murder under Section 103 BNS.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “…they did not intend to cause the death of Som Dutt and cannot be prima facie held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, but would be liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable in nature.”

HP High Court Allows Plea For Second Wife To Be Included In Govt Employee's Pension Record After First Wife's Death

Case Name: Mahesh Ram V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 168

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the second wife of a retired government employee cannot be denied pension after the death of the first wife, even if the marriage was technically invalid under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “True it is that in terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage of the petitioner with Ms. Jawala Devi i.e. second wife, during subsistence of his first marriage with Ms. Kamlesh Devi can be said to be illegal, but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case… respondents ought not have rejected the case of the petitioner”

Testator Executing Will In Favour Of Persons Taking Care Of His Household Is Not Unnatural: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Vidya & Ors v/s Vinita & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 169

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the execution of a will in favour of family members who had been caring for the testator and his household could not be termed unnatural.

Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “… the execution of Will by Anokhi Ram in favour of persons, who were taking care of the entire family and in whom he had reasons to establish trust cannot be said to be unnatural. The choice of testator for choosing one of the daughters and son-in-law to inherit the entire property stands duly explained and accordingly the defendants have been able to discharge the burden.”

Family Pension Of Deceased Employee Can Be Shared Equally Between First & Second Wife On Basis Of Voluntary Compromise: HP HC

Case Name : Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 170

A Division bench of the  Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that family pension of a deceased employee can be equally shared between the first and second wife through a voluntary and free-will compromise.

Pensioners Eligible For Reemployment Under Punjab Police Rules Even After Seeking Voluntary Retirement: HP High Court

Case Name: Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 171

The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state to reconsider the application of a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector, holding that pensioners after voluntary retirement are eligible for reemployment under Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules.

Rejecting the contention of the State, Justice Sandeep Sharma clarified that “…a person concerned can seek re-enrolment in three situations; i) discharge with compensation; ii) discharge with invalid gratuity; or iii) he should be in receipt of pension. In the aforesaid rule, word 'or' has been used… meaning thereby, person having any one of the aforesaid three situations can seek reemployment…”

Right To Appeal Cannot Be Made Conditional Upon Deposit Of Decretal Sum: HP High Court

Case Name: Sh. Rajinder Singh Thakur & another v/s Sh. Dhaminder Kunmar Chadha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 172

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an appellate court cannot impose the condition of depositing the decreetal amount as a precondition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The learned 1st Appellate Court had no authority to issue a direction that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed subject to deposition of 50% of the decreetal amount,”

HP High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Rape Accused, Says Lack Of Injuries On Victim's Body Shows Presence Of Consent

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Sunil Khan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 173

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape case, observing that the medical evidence, which revealed no injuries on the prosecutrix, supported the view that she may have consented to the alleged act.

Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that: “The medical evidence clearly shows that the prosecutrix did not sustain any injury on any part of her body and there was no mark of any injury or violence on her person at the time of her medical examination, which further fortifies the fact that she did not resist the alleged act… In fact, it seems that the prosecutrix was consenting party to the alleged act

Employer Liable To Reimburse Customs Duty Paid By Contractor If Exemption Certificate Not Provided At Import Stage: HP High Court

Case Title: Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Orange Business Service India Technology Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 174

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (HPPCL) upholding an arbitral award in favour of Orange Business Service India Technology Pvt. Ltd. The court held that the failure to provide exemption certificate by employer at the time of importation of goods for ADB funded project made it liable to reimburse the customs duty paid by the contractor.

Conviction Of Employee Does Not Lead To Automatic Dismissal, Disciplinary Enquiry Must: HP High Court

Case Title: Shiv Raj V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 175

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee cannot be dismissed from service solely on the ground of conviction, and that the disciplinary authority must conduct an enquiry or record reasons for not conducting an enquiry.

Rejecting the contention of HRTC, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Though learned counsel for HRTC argued that Rule 19(i) permits automatic termination of a government servant on conviction, this Court is not persuaded to agree. Having perused Rule 19 in its entirety, it is clear that the disciplinary authority must consider the circumstances of the case before passing such an order.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Convicts In Four-Year-Old Child's Murder Case

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Chander Sharma & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176

The Himachal Pradesh High Court commuted the death penalty awarded to Chander Sharma (26) and Vikrant Bakshi (22) in the 2014 Yug Gupta murder case, directing that they will serve life imprisonment “till their last breath.”

The Court acquitted co-accused, Tejinder Pal Singh (29), of all charges, holding that the offences of kidnapping against Tejinder pal for ransom under Sections 364A and 347 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that: “The material on record does not show that the accused cannot be reformed, hence we are unable to confirm the death penalty imposed by the learned Trial Court despite our indignation towards the crime. The same is reduced to life imprisonment, which will mean the natural life of the convicts till their last breath.”

Using MGNREGA Funds To Pay Skilled Employees Cannot Justify Denial Of Regularisation: HP High Court

Case Name: Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 177

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that MGNREGA is designed only for unskilled manual work, and cannot be used to deny regularization to skilled roles like Computer Operators.

The Court observed that the State wrongly used MGNREGA funds to pay for skilled services despite having sanctioned posts.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Unskilled manual work means any physical work which any adult person can do without special training. Petitioners, being skilled Computer Operators, could not have been assigned such work, but the State, noting the need for manpower, employed them and used MGNREGA funds to meet the expenditure.”

Sub-Tenant Bound By Eviction Order If He Fails To Establish Direct Tenancy Under Landlord's Predecessor-In-Interest: HP High Court

Case Name: Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 178

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if the sub-tenant fails to establish direct tenancy under landlord or predecessor-in-interest, the eviction order passed against tenant would be binding on them as well.

Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The sub-tenant was not a necessary party to an eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting, but since in the instant case the landlord herself had impleaded sub-tenant as a party, it could not be said that the sub-tenant was not the aggrieved party.”

Date Of Passing Final Exam Relevant For Batch-Wise Recruitment, Not When Certificate Was Issued: HP High Court

Case Name: Smt. Asha Rani V/s State of H.P. & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 179

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that for batch-wise recruitment, the year and month of passing the final examination must decide the candidate's batch and not the date on which the certificate was issued.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that “…it is nowhere mentioned in the R&P Rules that date of issuance of certificate given in the certificate would be relevant, rather… relevant date would be the year and month of passing.”

Inimical Relationship Between Victim & Accused Requires Cautious Evaluation: HP High Court Upholds Acquittal In Molestation Case

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Rajesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of an accused in a molestation case, observing that when the victim submits that she does not have cordial relations with accused and was not on talking terms with him, her testimony requires greater caution.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: “The informant admitted that she had an inimical relationship with the accused, and she was not on talking terms with the accused. Hence, her testimony was required to be seen with due care and caution, especially in view of the delay in reporting the matter to the police.”