LiveLaw Punjab & Haryana High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 22 - June 28, 2026
Nominal Index.[Citations 204 - 210]UNION OF INDIA v. USHA SINGLA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 204Surinder Kumar v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 205PRIYAWART AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 206ANURAG KHULLAR @ VISHAL v. U.T. Chandigarh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 207Vardhman Ranjan v. State of Haryana and Another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 208 Gurwinder Singh @ Baba...
Nominal Index.[Citations 204 - 210]
UNION OF INDIA v. USHA SINGLA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 204
Surinder Kumar v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 205
PRIYAWART AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 206
ANURAG KHULLAR @ VISHAL v. U.T. Chandigarh 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 207
Vardhman Ranjan v. State of Haryana and Another 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 208
Gurwinder Singh @ Baba v. National Investigating Agency, Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 209
Ranbir Singh and others v. Haryana State through Collector, Fatehabad 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 210
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. USHA SINGLA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 204
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the liability of the Union of India to pay compensation to victims of a bomb blast in a passenger train, holding that such an incident falls within the definition of an “accident” under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 204]
Justice Pankaj Jain said, "once it has been held that fire or explosion in the train falls within the definition of 'accident', the Union of India can not escape its liability to pay compensation on account of death arising out of bomb blast in the train/railway station."
Title: Surinder Kumar v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 205
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) mandating pro-rata computation of pension for employees opting for higher wages under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (EPS, 1995), holding it to be contrary to the statutory scheme and Supreme Court case in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 2014.
Title: PRIYAWART AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 206
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that contractual employees engaged under the National Health Mission (NHM), Haryana, are entitled to the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission, observing that the State cannot arbitrarily deny parity once it has consciously adopted a structured pay framework and extended earlier pay commission benefits. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 206].
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "The State, being a model employer, is expected to act with fairness, transparency and consistency. Administrative lethargy, inter-departmental indecision or shifting stands cannot become instruments for defeating the legitimate claims of employees who have served the public healthcare system of the State for years together. An employee cannot be left to wander through the corridors of bureaucracy in search of a right that is otherwise due to him. The State cannot be permitted to convert its own administrative shortcomings into a defence against a lawful claim, for that would amount to allowing the gatekeeper of justice to become its obstacle."
Title: ANURAG KHULLAR @ VISHAL v. U.T. Chandigarh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 207
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by an Advocate accused of cheating, forging a bail order to defraud complainants of over ₹10 lakh.
Justice Deepak Gupta said, “Merely because the petitioner is a practicing advocate cannot constitute a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. The status of a profession neither places a person above the law nor creates a separate standard for considering a prayer under Section 482 BNSS.”
Title: Vardhman Ranjan v. State of Haryana and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 208
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the preliminary examination result for the Haryana Civil Services (HCS) (Executive Branch) and allied services, reiterating that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with answer keys finalized by subject experts.
Jagmohan Bansal said, "the respondent-Commission in the present case has acted in a bona fide and transparent manner. The Commission has tried to resolve all the issues raised by candidates. If contention of petitioners is accepted, there would be never ending process of raising objections and it would be impossible for the Commission to finalize selection process. The Court cannot ignore the fact that exam in question was preliminary and final exam is going to take place in the end of this month."
Title: Gurwinder Singh @ Baba v. National Investigating Agency, Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 209
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular bail plea filed by Gurwinder Singh @ Baba, an accused in a high-profile terror-related case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) concerning the murder of Shaurya Chakra awardee Comrade Balwinder Singh Sandhu
A Division Bench comprising Justice Archana Puri and Justice Ramesh Kumari said, "Suffice to consider the material aforesaid, which points finger to the inclination of the appellant towards terrorism. Considering the same and keeping in view the strict provisions as contained under Section 43- D(5) of UAP Act, there is reasonable ground for the Court, to believe and form an opinion that accusations against the appellant, are prima facie true."
Title: Ranbir Singh and others v. Haryana State through Collector, Fatehabad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 210
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to claim ownership over private land, emphasizing that such a plea is incompatible with its role as a welfare State. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 209]
It thus directed the Haryana Government to pay compensation for a private land used for a distributary without acquisition.
Justice Ramesh Kumari said, "the State being a 'welfare State', is expected to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. The State cannot be permitted to become a 'squatter' over the lawful possessory and ownership rights of its citizens. The State can neither be permitted to perfect its possessory rights into ownership title over the land to grab the property of its own citizens."
Other Reports
P&H High Court Judge Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu Passes Away
Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, a sitting Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, passed away in the early hours of Sunday, June 28, 2026. He breathed his last at 2:50 a.m., as per an official communication issued by the Protocol Branch of the High Court.
“With profound grief and sorrow, it is informed that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, Judge of this Court, left for his heavenly abode today, i.e., 28 June 2026, at 02.50 a.m.,” the press note stated.
The legal fraternity mourns the untimely demise of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, a sitting Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who passed away on June 28, 2026. His sudden departure marks a profound loss to the institution he served with unwavering dedication, integrity, and empathy.