Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 2,2025 To November 9, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 214 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 219

Nominal Index:

National Institute of Technology, Delhi v/s Raj Kamal Verma and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 214

Sachin Shridhar & others v/s Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 215

Shri Mansha Ram v/s Shri Amar Nath (since deceased) through Lrs. Sh. Ashok Kumar and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 216

Om Prakash v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 217

Sh. Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 218

Union of India & Another v/s Kiran Bala and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 219

Employer Cannot Cite Delay To Deny Employee's Claim When It Failed To Respond To Representation For Years: HP High Court

Case Name: National Institute of Technology, Delhi v/s Raj Kamal Verma and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 214

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the National Institute of Technology, Delhi, challenging a Single Judge's order that quashed the withdrawal of a retired employee's higher grade pay and directed the institute to reconsider his claim for financial upgradation. The Court held that the delay was caused by NIT's failure to respond to the employee's representation.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that : “It is not disputed that filing of the representation in the year 2018 had never been responded to by the present appellant and only when the rejection order was passed on 28.01.2022, the writ petition came to be filed in July 2022… Having delayed to respond to the representation, now they cannot turn around and take the stance that there was a delay on the part of the employee.”

Shortfall In Land Area Not A Defect In Title: HP High Court Quashes HIMUDA's Order Withholding Payment Of Landowners

Case Name: Sachin Shridhar & others v/s Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 215

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a communication issued by the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority , which had withheld payment of to the landowners on the ground that a shortfall in the land area could not be treated as a defect in title under the sale deed.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel said: “This Court is of the considered view that defect in title of land cannot be confused with the alleged shortfall in the total land sold by the petitioners to the respondent.”

Secondary Evidence Allowed Only Upon Strict Proof Of Loss Or Destruction Of Original Document: HP High Court

Case Name: Shri Mansha Ram v/s Shri Amar Nath (since deceased) through Lrs. Sh. Ashok Kumar and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 216

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that courts can permit secondary evidence only upon strict proof that the original document is lost, destroyed, or withheld by the opposing party. Mere allegations or unsubstantiated claims of loss are insufficient grounds for such permission.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that: “An inquiry report revealed that no original document was submitted by the plaintiff for registration and what he had submitted was only a photocopy of the said Will and the complaint was also dismissed.”

Legal Services Authorities Act | Executive Chairman Competent To Delegate Disciplinary Powers To DLSA: HP High Court

Case Name: Om Prakash v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 217

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority is legally competent to delegate disciplinary powers to the District Legal Services Authority.

It was stated that since proper authorisation took place and no procedural irregularity was found, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were valid.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj held that: “Once the record goes on to show that the Executive Chairman had delegated the power at the district level to the DLSA who is the District Judge and the Chairman as per Section 9 of the Act, no fault as such can be found in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.”

Civic Body Cannot Label Occupant As Trespasser After Seeking Voluntary Vacation On Promise Of Re-Allotment: HP High Court

Case Name: Sh. Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 218

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a Municipal Corporation can't raise the issue of trespassing by a former occupant, after it had sought vacation of the premises on the promise of re-allotment.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The respondent–Corporation which got the premises vacated from the petitioner on the promise of the petitioner being put back in possession… cannot now be allowed to raise the issue of the petitioner being in unauthorized possession or having trespassed over the property of the State in these proceedings.”

Deceased Cannot Waive Dependents' Right To Motor Accident Compensation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Union of India & Another v/s Kiran Bala and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 219

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a deceased person cannot relinquish the statutory right of his dependents to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “A person can relinquish his personal claim, but not the claim of other family members or dependents by swearing an affidavit or giving undertaking.”

The appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Union of India against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi which granted compensation to the wife, mother, and children of the deceased Halku Ram, who died in a road accident.