Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 18, 2025 To August 24, 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 129 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 138Nominal Index:Krishan Kumar Kasana V/s State of H.P. & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 129Yog Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 130Digvijay Singh V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 131Nek Singh Dogra State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 132Sant Ram v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 133Hoshiar Singh...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 129 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 138
Nominal Index:
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
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,”
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.”
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.”
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”.
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”
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.”
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”.
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”.
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,”
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.”