Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 22 To September 28, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 167 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 175 

Nominal Index:

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

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.”