Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 122 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 128

Nominal Index:

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

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 khasra numbers 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.”