Himachal Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 108 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 142

NOMINAL INDEX:

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

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 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.”

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.”