Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21, 2025 To July 27, 2025
Nominal Index: 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. &...
Nominal Index:
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
Retrospective Regularization Of Class-III Employees Counts For Pension Benefits In line with Precedents Applicable To Class-IV : Himachal Pradesh HC 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 97
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 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 98
Case Name: Rama Devi & Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 98
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered an enquiry into a lawyer, after the appellants in an MACT appeal case alleged that their former advocate misused their signatures and fraudulently withdrew accident compensation money.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur said: “Direct the Chairman, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh as well as Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to look into the matter personally and ensure to take complaint/application to its logical end, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner and to communicate the action taken on the complaint to applicant No.1-appellant immediately as well as to this Court through Registrar (Judicial) well before next date of hearing.”
Case Name: Rishi Raj v/s Ram Krishan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 99
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that close family ties do not prevent a valid employer–employee relationship under law if it is supported by credible evidence on record.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed “It has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court that technically there is possibility that husband and wife can have relation of employer and employee. It is apt to notice that relation of husband and wife is more closer than the relation of brother, as both of them being partners of life, in normal circumstances, cannot be expected to work as employee and employer, however, despite that it has been observed by the Supreme Court that such relationship is possible”.
NDPS Act | Mere Presence Of Contraband In Taxi Doesn't Prove Driver's Guilt: Himachal Pradesh High Court 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 100
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 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 101
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 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 102
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 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 103
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 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 104
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”.