Nominal Index:

Sunil Kumar v/s Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 92

Shishu Pal Mehta v/s State of H.P. & another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 93

Ajay Bhaik v. State of H.P. & Others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 94

Smt. Raj (since deceased) through her legal representatives.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 95

Deep Ram v/s State of H.P. & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 96

Babita Jamwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 97

Manik Kumar v/s State of H.P. & another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 98

Kazeema Sheikh v/s State of H.P.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 99

Dr. Narender Kumar Bhardwaj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 100

State of H.P. v/s Ram Lal.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 101

Dildar Ali Batt & others v/s State of H.P. & another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 102

HPSEBL and Anr. v. Narender Kumar.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 103

Nitu Kuamri v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 104

Sanjay Kumar Khanna v/s State of H.P. & anr.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 105

Riya Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 106

Gaurav Verma v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 107

State of H.P and others vs. Ramesh Chand and another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 108

Religious Sentiments Can't Justify Obstruction Of Public Pathway: Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Removal Of Temple Gate

Case Name: Sunil Kumar v/s Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 92

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that religious sentiments cannot justify unlawful obstruction of a public pathway, observing that "religion cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to subvert the legal process."

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: “It would be in the interest of everyone to have the matter amicably resolved rather than leaving it upon the Court. The concerned officials will take into consideration that none should be allowed to take the law in his hand on the pretext of hurting religious sentiments. Religion cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to subvert the legal process.”

Supernumerary Posts U/S 20(4) RPwD Act Available Only To Those Who Acquire Disability During Service: HP High Court

Case Name: Shishu Pal Mehta v/s State of H.P. & another

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 93

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the benefit of adjustment against a supernumerary post under Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is available only to employees who acquire a disability during the course of their service.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that:"A plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016 demonstrates that this sub-section comes into picture only when an employee acquires a disability during service. This sub-section is not at all attracted in the facts of the present case, because the petitioner was appointed in service on account of him being a person with disability."

'Motivated': HP High Court Rejects PIL Challenging Procurement Of Infosys Software For Cooperative Bank, Forfeits ₹2 Lakh Deposit

Case Name: Ajay Bhaik v. State of H.P. & Others

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 94

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the State Cooperative Bank's procurement of the Infosys Finacle 10.02.25 Core Banking Software without an independent tendering process, holding that the petition was not a genuine public interest litigation but one driven by business rivalry and a deep-rooted private motive.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi further directed forfeiture of the ₹2,00,000 the petitioner had been asked to deposit in the Registry, observing that this was necessary "to ensure that such frivolous litigations do not subvert the system of this Court."

State-Owned Corporations Can't Cite Financial Constraints To Deny Pensionary Benefits: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Smt. Raj (since deceased) through her legal representatives

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 95

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that State-owned corporations cannot cite financial constraints to deny pensionary benefits to eligible employees and their families, observing that such entities "are nothing but white elephants" if they continue to withhold dues despite settled legal rights.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "It is very, very saddening that the reason on account whereof the pensioners of the Corporation were being denied pension in the year 2009, has not changed even after almost two decades. The above demonstrates that either these Corporations are nothing but white elephants or they lack the intent to pay pensionary benefits to those who are entitled to the same."

Prisoner's Parole Can't Be Denied Solely Because Six Months Haven't Elapsed Since Previous Release: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Deep Ram v/s State of H.P. & others

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 96

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prisoner's request for parole cannot be rejected solely because six months have not elapsed since the completion of an earlier parole.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“Once the claim of a convict for parole originates and is governed by the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act and Rules and the Statute and Rules framed thereunder do not place any embargo or restriction that the second parole cannot be considered/granted before expiry of 6 months period”

Using Teachers for Years Without Fair Pay Amounts to 'Begaar': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 97

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State cannot exploit the services of teachers engaged in government schools for years without extending the benefits due to them, observing that such conduct amounts to "begaar" prohibited by the Constitution.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "All the above mentioned facts, demonstrate that the Department, in fact, is resorting to 'Begaar', which otherwise is prohibited by the Constitution of India. Taking advantage of the unemployment amongst the educated youth, they are being exploited, not only by others, but even by the Government and present one is also a perfect example of the same."

HP High Court Quashes FIR Against Liquor Bottling Unit Over Failure To Affix Holograms, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty Under Excise Act

Case Name: Manik Kumar v/s State of H.P. & another

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 98

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the mere failure to affix holograms on liquor bottles does not constitute a criminal offence under Sections 39(1) and 39(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “As has been observed herein above, omission, if any, of licensee to put hologram, doesn't constitute an offense under Sections 39(1) and 39(2) of the Act, rather, qua aforesaid omission, licensee can be imposed penalty in terms of Section 43 of the Act.”

Sister-In-Law's Advice To Take Care To Prevent Miscarriage Isn't Harassment For Not Bearing Child, Doesn't Amount To Abetment: HP High Court

Case Name: Kazeema Sheikh v/s State of H.P.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 99

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that merely asking a woman to take care of her health, particularly her food habits to prevent a future miscarriage, may not be sufficient to conclude that she was being harassed or tortured for not bearing a child.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Merely asking somebody to take care of her health, especially with regard to food habits so that miscarriage is prevented in future may not be sufficient to conclude that deceased was being harassed and tortured for her not bearing a child.”

HP High Court Orders Probe Against Officials For Allowing Govt Doctor To Retain Accommodation For Over A Decade Despite Transfer

Case Name: Dr. Narender Kumar Bhardwaj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 100

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed an inquiry against the concerned officers/officials for allegedly allowing a Medical Officer to retain earmarked government accommodation at Hamirpur for more than a decade after his transfer, observing that such continued retention would not have been possible without the officials concerned being “hand in glove” with the petitioner. 

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “An inquiry has to be initiated against the Officer(s)/Official(s) concerned, who have allowed the petitioner to retain an earmarked accommodation of a Medical Officer for more than a decade, i.e., beyond the period prescribed to retain the same.

NDPS Act Does Not Allow Any Other Options After Accused Chooses Gazetted Officer For Search U/S 50: HP High Court

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Ram Lal

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 101

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not permit the Investigating Officer or any other officer, including the Gazetted Officer before whom the personal search is to be conducted, to give an accused a fresh or third option after the accused has already exercised his statutory choice.

Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “the Statute does not recognize the giving of “third alternative or fresh option by the same authorized -empowered person [Investigating Officer] and/or by any other officer or by the Gazetted Officer before whom personal search is to be conducted.”

Mere Participation in Protest March Does Not Make One Part of Unlawful Assembly: HP High Court

Case Name: Dildar Ali Batt & others v/s State of H.P. & another

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 102

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that mere participation in a protest march does not, by itself, make a person a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the IPC.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“Since petitioners herein, after having seen conduct of some of the persons, who allegedly gave beatings to the teachers, separated them from the march and attempted to save the teachers … they cannot be said to be a part of unlawful assembly.”

Government Employee Can't Be Denied Financial Benefit Merely For Lack Of Awareness Of Office Order Published Online: HP HC

Case Name : HPSEBL and Anr. v. Narender Kumar

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 103

A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that a government employee cannot be denied the benefit of an office order with financial implications merely because it was placed on a website, as proper publication through a reasonable mode is essential, and the employee's lack of awareness due to field posting and subsequent timely representation must be considered.

Unmarried Woman Applying For Govt Job Cannot Be Expected To Remain Unmarried Till Completion Of Recruitment Process: HP High Court

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

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 104

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an unmarried woman who applies for a government post cannot be expected to remain unmarried until the recruitment process is completed.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: there is no law in this country which ordinarily says that if an unmarried lady applies for a post, then she is under legal obligation not to change her marital status till the recruitment process is over that too for posts like Van Mitra

Mere Protesting Or Using Bad Language Does Not Constitute Obstruction Of Public Servant: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Sanjay Kumar Khanna v/s State of H.P. & anr.

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 105

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that mere protest or use of intemperate language against a public servant, in the absence of any overt act that actually obstructs the discharge of official duties, does not constitute an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Mere protesting or using intemperate language, without an overt act, will not be an offense punishable under Section 186 of Indian Penal Code. Passive conduct without disturbing a public servant in discharge of his functions or duties will not amount to voluntarily obstructing a public servant within the meaning of Section 186 of Indian Penal Code.”

Para-Veterinarian From Legally Established University Cannot Be Denied Registration Over Absence Of State Recognition: HP High Court

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

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 106

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a para-veterinary qualification obtained from a university established by law cannot be denied recognition merely because the university is not separately recognised by the State Government or registered with the Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Rule 14 of the HPPVC Rules, 2011, to the extent it provides that institutions/Universities imparting training shall have to be registered with the State Council, as well as providing that only Universities recognized by the State Government shall be eligible for registration in the State Council, is in direct conflict with the provisions of the HPPVC Act, 2010.”

'Protectors Have Become Violators': HP High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Police Constables Convicted Under NDPS Act

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

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 107

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of two police constables convicted of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), observing that the involvement of police personnel in NDPS offences was a serious matter.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The convicts happen to be employees of the police department. In other words, the constables of the police department themselves have been convicted for the commission of offense under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The protectors of law themselves have become violators of law.”

State Can't Deny Interest On GPF Amount Retained Beyond Retirement : HP HC

Case Name : State of H.P and others vs. Ramesh Chand and another

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 108

A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court  comprising Chief Justice G. S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj held that a government employee is entitled to interest on delayed GPF payments when the State itself processed the retention request and passed a validation order, preventing it from later claiming non-compliance with the rules.