Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 30 To July 6, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 73 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 80

Nominal Index:

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

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

Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 75

Monika v/s State of HP & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 76

Biogenetic Drugs (P) Ltd. & another v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 77

Devi Dass v/s M/s Ginni Global Pvt. Ltd. & another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 78

Surinder Chauhan v/s Jai Lal Bragra., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 79

Parneet Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 80

ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS

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 & others.

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.

Justice Sushil Kukreja held, “A bare perusal of the statement of these witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-3 so examined by the prosecution is clearly indicative of the fact that some of the accused persons were stranger to the said witnesses and in these circumstances test identification parade was necessary in order to ascertain the identity of the accused persons. Failure to establish the identity of the accused goes to the root of the matter as such the possibility of mistaken identity cannot be ruled out.”

'Govt Employees With Political Connections Not Being Given Hard/Tribal Postings Despite State's Transfer Policy': HP High Court

Case Title: Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 75

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State to ensure that transfers are made strictly in accordance with the transfer policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The court emphasised that every government employee should be posted to a difficult area once during their service and that such postings should not be influenced by political relations.

Justice Sandeep Sharma: “Transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh clearly reveals that every employee, during his life career, should be sent to sub cadre/hard/tribal area, but this Court has noticed in many cases that employees having good political relation and influence are hardly sent to hard/tribal area, and employees, who do not have any say in the corridors of Government, are repeatedly sent to hard/tribal areas, which results in heartburn.”

Clubbing Stay Of Employee At Different Postings For Transfer Purposes Doesn't Violate Definition Of “Transfer” Under State Rules: HP High Court

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 76

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that clubbing the period of stay for the transfer of employees does not violate the State's Transfer Policy or the statutory rules governing transfers. In holding thus, the court overruled an earlier conflicting judgment in Anurag Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023.

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “We are at a complete loss to understand how the clubbing of stay for the purpose of transfer of an employee violates the aforesaid provisions as it does not alter the meaning of 'transfer."

Drugs & Cosmetics Act | 'Rule-Making Power Lies Only With Centre': HP High Court Quashes SOPs By State Drug Controller

Case Title: Biogenetic Drugs (P) Ltd. & another v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 77

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State Drug Controller does not have the authority to issue an Office Order or Standard Operating Procedure, as rule-making power under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act lies exclusively with the Central Government.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel: “In this view of the matter, when the Rule making power is exclusively conferred upon the Central Government and the Central Government has in exercise of the powers so conferred, framed Rules which govern all the activities of manufacturers like the petitioners including the sale of drug manufactured, the Office Order in question which has been issued by the State Drug Controller, bereft of any Authority in law vested in the State Drug Controller to issue the same, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

Ex-Parte Decree Can't Be Set Aside For Mere Irregularity In Serving Summons If Party Had Enough Time To Contest It: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Devi Dass v/s M/s Ginni Global Pvt. Ltd. & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 78

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a Trial Court order which set aside an ex-parte decree, while holding that an ex parte decree can't be set aside merely on the ground of irregularity in service of summons if it is established that the other party had notice of the hearing date and sufficient time to contest the claim.

Justice Satyen Vaidya said: “The second proviso appended to Rule 13 of Order 9 of the Code carves out an exception that no Court shall set-aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.”

Bonafide Requirement Must Be Seen On Date Of Initiation Of Eviction Process, Not During Pendency Of Proceedings: HP High Court

Case Title: Surinder Chauhan v/s Jai Lal Bragra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 79

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the death of a landlord's son during the pendency of eviction proceedings does not affect the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction, as the date for assessing such requirement is the date of filing the eviction petition and not during the pendency of the proceedings.

The Court observed that eviction proceedings take time, and the landlord should not suffer because of this. A landlord remains entitled to possession to put their property to better use or settle their family, irrespective of subsequent events, the court said.

CCS Pension Rules | Pension Can't Be Arbitrarily Denied To Employees Under Old Scheme Who Were Transferred Without Break In Service: HP High Court

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 80

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an employee can't be arbitrarily denied pension under old scheme when he was transferred through the proper channels and without any break in service.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “In the facts of the case in hand, petitioner also qualified other condition as he had been transferred to the borrowing employer through proper channel w.e.f. 15.11.2002 when the 1999 Scheme was still in force. His absorption was without any break in service and as such, all the requirements of technical resignation were met.”