Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 18, 2025 To August 24, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 129 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 138Nominal Index:Krishan Kumar Kasana V/s State of H.P. & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 129Yog Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 130Digvijay Singh V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 131Nek Singh Dogra State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 132Sant Ram v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 133Hoshiar Singh V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 134Susheela Rana V/s State of H.P & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 135Smt. Ganga Jogta v/s Shri Nand Lal (deceased) through his legal heirs.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 136Himachal Pradesh Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Associate & another V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 137Suleman V/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 138Taking Photographs Of A Woman Doesn't Satisfy Definition Of Stalking U/S 78 Of BNS: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Name: Krishan Kumar Kasana V/s State of H.P. & anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 129The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to an industrialist, who was accused of allegedly taking photographs of the wife of a regional officer of the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board in an attempt to intimidate him.Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, the allegations in the complaint do not show that the petitioner had followed the informant's wife and contacted her to foster personal interaction. The only allegation is that the petitioner had taken the photographs of the informant's wife, Prima facie these allegations do not satisfy the definition of stalking,”Mere Pendency Of FIR For Minor Offences Can't Be A Ground To Deny Compassionate Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Name: Yog Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 130The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the pendency of an FIR, particularly for petty offences, cannot be a valid reason to withhold compassionate appointment already approved by the competent authority.Justice Sandeep Sharma observed: “Till the time charge is not framed against the accused and he is not convicted by a competent Court of law, he is deemed to be innocent. If it is so, denial of appointment on the ground of mere pendency of FIR, that too for petty offences, may not be sustainable.”NDPS Act | Non-Production Of Seal Used To Secure Recovered Contraband Does Not Vitiate NDPS Trial: HP High CourtCase Name: Digvijay Singh V/s State of H.P.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 131The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prosecution case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot be rejected merely because the seal used for sealing the recovered contraband was not produced before the Trial Court.Rejecting the contention of the accused, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “There is unchallenged and trustworthy evidence that the case property was not tampered with at any stage, the non-production of the seals used for sealing and re-sealing of the bulk case property or the samples is also of no help to the accused.”Employee Cannot Seek Promotion Merely Based On Eligibility, When Dept Promotion Committee Was Not Convened Before His Retirement: HP High CourtCase Name: Nek Singh Dogra State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 132The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an employee cannot claim promotion merely on the ground that he was found eligible, where the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened only after his retirement.The Court further stated that there is no vested right to promotion after superannuation in the absence of any mala fide delay on the part of the competent authority.Rejecting the writ petition Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held: “The petitioner does not have any vested right to seek promotion only on the basis of his name having been found to be eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I. Since, the petitioner had superannuated prior to the convening of DPC, he cannot be granted promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I”.CCS Rules | Once Employee's Study Leave Is Sanctioned, State Can't Reduce Salary Based On Subsequent Amendment: HP High Court Case Name: Sant Ram v/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 133 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once an employee was given study leave for pursuing a three-year LLB Degree course, he became entitled to full leave salary in terms of the unamended Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules.The Court clarified that the subsequent amendment, which reduced the leave salary to 40% could not be applied retrospectively to a leave that had already been sanctioned.Rejecting the State's contention Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua stated that “Petitioner had applied for study leave through proper channel and the Government had sanctioned study leave in his favour on 01.09.2023, i.e. prior to the issuance of Finance Department's notification dated 07.08.2024, hence, the petitioner is eligible for 100% leave salary during the sanctioned study leave for pursuing...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 18, 2025 To August 24, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags