Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 08 To September 14, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 150 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 155

Union of India v/s Mahanti Devi and another, State of H.P. v/s Mahanti Devi and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 150

Khelo Ram V/s State of H.P., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 151

Sanjay K. Maanav v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 152

Tulsi Ram v/s Mustaq Qureshi.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 153

Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 154

Jagat Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 155

Bureaucrats Must Realise That Benefits Received By Them Are Possible Due To Freedom Fighters: HP High Court On Denial Of Pension To Widow

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh against the widow of a freedom fighter seeking pension.

The Court held that despite repeated reminders by the Supreme Court regarding the purpose of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme the state authorities continued to deny pension on untenable grounds.

A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “However, on the ground a different bureaucratic mindset is engrained so deep that it is hard for them to shake-off and realise that the benefits they are receiving while holding such offices, are only on account of the fact that the Freedom Fighters are responsible for their State of Affairs at this present point of time”.

Case Name: Union of India v/s Mahanti Devi and another, State of H.P. v/s Mahanti Devi and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 150

Human Teeth Are Not A 'Deadly Weapon' Under Section 324 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has partly allowed a revision petition, holding that human teeth are not considered as a “deadly weapon” under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated: “………injury caused by teeth does not fall within the purview of Section 324 of the IPC . Hence, the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.”

Case Name: Khelo Ram V/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 151

Keeping Unlicensed Medicines On Clinic Rack Amounts To “Offer For Sale”, Violates S.27 Of Drugs & Cosmetics Act: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that stocking allopathic medicines without a valid license and keeping them on the racks of the clinic amounted to an “offer for sale” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and violates section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which prescribes punishment for selling drugs without a valid license.

Rejecting the contention of the accused that mere possession is not an offence till there is direct proof of sale, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “the drugs were found on the rack inside the clinic and learned Trial Court had rightly held that this violated Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act”.

Case Name: Sanjay K. Maanav v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 152

Pension Is Not A Perpetual Income, Cannot Override Bonafide Need Of Premises By Landlord's Family: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pension income cannot substitute a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises to settle his son in business.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Income of pension is also not a perpetual income and after death of landlord, his family members including his younger son shall not be entitled for any pension”.

Case Name: Tulsi Ram v/s Mustaq Qureshi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 153

Married Daughter Can't Be Excluded From Family For Purpose Of Compassionate Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and family income has to be calculated including them as well.

Quoting Rakesh Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2022, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Noted that: “Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father… this Court is of the considered view that the annual family income of the deceased in the present case has to be assessed by considering the strength of the family to be four…”

Case Name: Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 154

Retired Class-IV Employee Not Expected To Understand Terms Like 'Acquiescence' Or 'Delay': HP High Court Quashes Pension Rejection Order

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the pension rejection order of a daily wage beldar worker, holding that pension cannot be denied on the ground that of delay in filing claim as a class IV cannot be expected to understand technical legal concepts like acquiescence or laches, and pension is a recurring right that cannot be defeated by delay.

Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Class-IV employee like petitioner cannot be expected to know the very meaning of acquiescence and as such, plea of delay and laches sought to be raised deserves to be rejected, especially when pension is recurring cause of action”.

Case Name: Jagat Ram v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 155