Himachal Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: June 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 44 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 74

NOMINAL INDEX:

Dharam Chand v/s State of H.P. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 44

Smt. Anita v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 45

Indira Daroch v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 46

Dinesh Negi v/s Sahil Sood2025 LiveLaw (HP) 47

Neena Singh Thakur v/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 48

Yash Pal Thakur v State2025 LiveLaw (HP) 49

Surender Verma v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 50

Akhil v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 51

Rajeev Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 52

Yashwant Mandhotra v/s Hon'ble High Court of HP & others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 53

Sh. Mohit Shukla v/s Himachal Pradesh University & another,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 54

M/s Jaypee University of Information Technology v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 55

Keshav Ram & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others, Karam Chand & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 56

Mohan Singh Alias Babu Ram v/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 57

Sahil Kumar V/s HPSEBL & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 58

Dr. Swati Aggarwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 59

Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Satya Devi and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 60

Vijay Singh Chandel v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 61

Ishwar Dass v/s State of HP & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 62

Vinod Kumar v/s State of H.P. & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 63

Judhya Devi (since Deceased) & another v/s Naresh Kumar., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 64

Shyama Power India Ltd. v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 65

Hem Chand V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 66

Dr. Subhash Thakur v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 67

State of H.P. v/s Baldev Singh alias Kewal Singh., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 68

Vinod Kumar v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 69

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 70

Sanatam Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 71

Sahil Sharma v/s State of HP & Another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 72

Surinder Kumar v/s central Sanskrit University., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 73

Liyakat Ali v/s State of HP., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 74

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Magistrate Can Direct Further Investigation U/S Section 173(8) Crpc Even After Taking Cognizance

Case Title: Dharam Chand v/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 44

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when the court finds that a proper investigation has not been conducted, the Magistrate can exercise the power under Section 173(8) of the CrPC suo motu to direct the police to conduct further investigation, even after taking cognizance of the case.

Proper Verification Of Vote Counting Procedure Essential In Elections: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Smt. Anita v/s State of H.P. & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 45

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when questions arise regarding the proper conduct of vote counting procedures, it is essential to examine the relevant records to determine whether counting was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules.

CCS Pension Rules | Withdrawal Of Premature Retirement Notice Permissible Before Effective Date: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Indira Daroch v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 46

Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that under Rule 43(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, an employee may withdraw a notice of premature retirement before it becomes effective, subject to the specific approval of the competent authority and upon giving valid reasons.

“Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, specifies that a government servant who has opted for voluntary retirement and has given the necessary notice to the appointing authority cannot withdraw their notice without the specific approval of that authority”.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Reduces Sentence U/S 138 NI Act To 'Till Rising Of Court' On Full Payment Of Cheque Amount

Case Title: Dinesh Negi v/s Sahil Sood

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 47

Himachal Pradesh High Court Reduces Sentence to 'Till Rising of the Court' Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Holding That While the Act Prescribes No Minimum Punishment, Sentence May Be Reduced Where the Accused Has Deposited the Entire Default Amount.

Notice U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act Can't Be Issued Without Giving Proper Reasons: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Neena Singh Thakur v/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 48

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a notice under Section 148 of Income Tax 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, can't be issued by the assessing officer without giving proper reasons.

“Section 148 enables the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings where income chargeable to tax is believed to have escaped assessment”.

Almost 2 Yrs Passed, Not A Single Witness Was Examined: HP High Court Grants Bail to NDPS Accused, Cites Violation Of Fundamental Rights

Case Title: Yash Pal Thakur v State2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 49

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday (June 3), granted bail to an individual accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, citing an undue delay in initiating the trial proceedings.

Burden Lies On Employee To Justify Claim Under 'Equal Pay For Equal Work' Principle: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Surender Verma v/s State of H.P. & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 50

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when an employee seeks the benefit of principle of equal pay for equal work, it is their duty to submit relevant data to support the claim.

Judicial Review Can't Be Invoked To Override Recruitment Rules Framed By Competent Authority: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Akhil v/s State of H.P. & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 51

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the eligibility conditions for a particular post are determined by the employer, and Courts can't modify them or frame new ones.

State's Delay In Creating Posts, Can't Deny Regularization Rights To Contractual Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Rajeev Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 52

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that State's delay in creating posts, can't defeat the contractual employees right to regularization once they fulfill the prescribed period of service under the State's regularization policy.

Claim For Seniority Not Maintainable When Transfer Order Expressly Forfeits Prior Service: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Yashwant Mandhotra v/s Hon'ble High Court of HP & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 53

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a claim for seniority can't be sustained, where the terms of transfer clearly provide that previous service will not be counted for seniority purpose.

Personal Choice To Prepare For Competitive Exams Does Not Entitle Extension Of Professional Course: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sh. Mohit Shukla v/s Himachal Pradesh University & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 54

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a student's personal decision to prepare for a competitive examination and not appear for semester examination does not entitle them to an extension of the of the prescribed timeline for completion of a professional course.

Assessing Officer Can't Act As Prosecutor, Judge And Executor At The Same Time: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s Jaypee University of Information Technology v/s State of H.P. & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 55

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Assessing officer must provide the university a fair opportunity to present its case and can't take law in his own hand by acting as a Prosecutor, Judge and Executor at the same time.

State Can't Treat All Land Owners Alike, As It Would Deny Poor Rural Land Owners Fair Compensation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Compensation At Multiplier Of Two For Rural Land Acquisition

Case Title: Keshav Ram & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others, Karam Chand & Others. v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 56

Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a State Government notification that had fixed the compensation multiplier at one for rural land acquisitions. The Court held that multiplier factor is required to be two for land acquired in rural areas. It emphasized that the state can't treat all landowners the same, as doing so denies poor land owners in rural areas fair compensation, which defeats the main objective of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Probation of Offenders Act Not Applicable In Serious Offences Like Job Fraud: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Mohan Singh Alias Babu Ram v/s State of H.P

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 57

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can't be given in cases when a person secures a government job through fraud by misusing another individual's educational certificate. The Court emphasized that such fraudulent act deprives another person of public employment.

Income Certificate Not Required When BPL Certificate Is Submitted: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sahil Kumar V/s HPSEBL & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 58

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a valid Below Poverty Line certificate is sufficient to claim marks reserved for candidates from economically weaker backgrounds, and income certificate is not required. The Court stated that a BPL certificate is issued only to families who meet the prescribed income eligibility criteria.

State Must Ensure Fair Promotions And Equal Treatment Of Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Dr. Swati Aggarwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 59

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that government authorities must fill vacant posts in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules and must uphold fairness and equality in public employment.

MV Act | Married Daughters Of Deceased Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Consortium, Not For Loss Of Financial Dependency

Case Title: Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Satya Devi and others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 60

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation for loss of income is only awarded to family members who were financially dependent on the deceased. However, married daughters, though not financially dependent on their father, are still entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium.

Teaching Experience Prior To Recognition Of Medical College Can't Be Counted Towards Eligibility : Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: Vijay Singh Chandel v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.,

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 61

A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that teaching experience acquired before the formal recognition or establishment of a medical college under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, cannot be treated as valid for the purpose of determining eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, as per the statutory Recruitment Rules.

Medical Reimbursement Can't Be Denied On Flimsy Grounds When Claim Is Admissible Under State Policy: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Ishwar Dass v/s State of HP & ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 62

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a medical reimbursement claim cannot be denied on flimsy or irrelevant grounds when it was admissible under the beneficial policy of the State Government.

Lessee Falls Within Definition Of Occupier And Is Bound To Deposit EPF Contributions: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar v/s State of H.P. & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 63

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a lessee who had control over the operations of a factory fell within the definition of "occupier" under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and was therefore legally bound to deduct and deposit Employees Provident Fund contributions into the statutory fund.

In Land Disputes, Only Demarcation Issue Should Be Reconsidered If Report Is Irregular, Entire Suit Need Not Be Remanded: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Judhya Devi (since Deceased) & another v/s Naresh Kumar.,

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 64

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if the Local Commissioner's demarcation report is found to be irregular, only the report should be sent back for a fresh demarcation. The entire suit need not be remanded for reconsideration.

Amount Deposited Under Protest Can't Be Treated As Admission Of Tax Liability: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Shyama Power India Ltd. v/s State of HP & others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 65

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a taxpayer deposits an amount “under protest”, it does not amount to an admission of tax liability.

A Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed as follows;

“Once the petitioner had deposited the amount 'under protest', the same could not have been considered to be an admission of liability because the necessary corollary of deposit under protest is that the amount towards the alleged liability has been deposited without admitting the liability and inherent therein is his right to challenge the order.”

State Should Not Use Temporary Appointments To Escape Regularization And Avoid Responsibilities: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Hem Chand V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 66

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State and its functionaries can't use unfair practices to deny regularization to temporary employees who have completed required service years, stating that keeping employees in temporary posts to avoid granting them the benefits of regularization is exploitative and legally unjustified.

Penalty Can't Be Imposed Based On Vague And Inconclusive Inquiry Findings: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Dr. Subhash Thakur v/s State of HP & others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 67

Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a penalty imposed on a government doctor, holding that a vague and inconclusive inquiry report can't be used to impose penalty or take disciplinary action.

'Motorcyclist Appeared Suddenly, From Wrong Side Of Highway': HP High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Car Driver Over Fatal Accident With Bike

Case Title: State of H.P. v/s Baldev Singh alias Kewal Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 68

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of the trial court in dropping charges against the driver of a Scorpio who was involved in a fatal collision with a motorcycle upon noting that the car was being driven on the correct side of the road, but the motorcycle had suddenly appeared from the wrong side of the highway at an intersection, leading to the car being unable to stop and the subsequent crash.

[Service Law] Ex-Parte Inquiry Does Not Justify Returning Findings Without Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar v/s State of HP & others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 69

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that conducting an ex parte inquiry does not grant the Inquiry Officer the freedom to return findings against an employee without any evidence.

Every Individual Has Fundamental Right To Career Progression, Resignation Or Request For NOC Can't Be Denied Arbitrarily : Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 70

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that an unwilling employee cannot be compelled to continue in service merely on the ground of staff shortage; every individual has a fundamental right to career progression, and resignation or request for NOC cannot be denied arbitrarily, especially when applicant is willing to serve the State as a Super Specialist for five years after completing the course.

State Can't Take Over Assets Of Private Educational Institutions Without Compensation: HP High Court Awards ₹1.76 Crores to Sanatan Dharam Sabha

Case Title: Sanatam Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha v/s State of HP & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 71

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that even if the State is allowed to take over privately managed educational institutions, it can't do so without compensating the management for the immovable and movable assets developed by the private management.

Anticipatory Bail Can't Be Denied U/S 18 Of SC/ST Act When FIR Doesn't Mention Offence Was Due To Victim's SC Status: HP High Court

Case Title: Sahil Sharma v/s State of HP & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 72

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when an FIR does not mention that the offence against the victim, in this case rape, was because they belonged to a Scheduled caste commmunity, anticipatory bail can't be denied u/s 18 of the SC/ST Act, which bars the grant of anticipatory bail.

Natural Justice Must Be Followed Even For Temporary Or Contractual Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Surinder Kumar v/s central Sanskrit University

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 73

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Sandeep Sharma set aside the suspension order of a data entry operator. The court ruled that a proper inquiry and show cause notice is mandatory before suspending an employee for misconduct. The court further clarified that natural justice principles must be followed even for temporary or contractual employees.

Test Identification Parade Necessary When Accused Are Strangers To Witnesses: HP High Court Acquits Accused After 13 Yrs

Case Title: Liyakat Ali v/s State of HP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 74

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has acquitted multiple accused in a case of assault after 13 years, holding that when the accused are strangers to a witness, a test identification parade is necessary. It was held that failure to establish the identity goes to the root of the matter, as it raises a possibility that the accused was wrongly identified.