Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11, 2025 To August 17, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 122 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 128Nominal Index:Dr. Daljit Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 122Sh. Kishori Lal and another v/s Smt.Darshna Devi., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 123Abhishek Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 124State of H.P. V/s Manav Sharma., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 125Kamini Sharma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 126Puran Prakash Goel & another v/s Chaman Lal Vaidya., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 127Smt. Nalini Vidya v/s The Mandi Urban Co-operative Bank Limited., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 128Govt Employee Who Acquires Benchmark Disability During Service Can Extend Retirement Age Even If Not Appointed Under PwD Quota: HP High CourtCase Name: Dr. Daljit Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 122The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a government employee who acquires benchmark disability during service is entitled to the benefit of extended retirement age under the State's policy, even if he was not appointed under the handicapped quota.Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “Merely because a person suffers disability in service, offers no valid ground to discriminate him vis-a-vis the person, who was physically disabled and had been inducted into service under handicapped quota for purposes of fixing retirement age.”Court Cannot Direct Police To Ascertain Actual On-Ground Situation In Application For Police Assistance: HP High CourtCase Name: Sh. Kishori Lal and another v/s Smt.Darshna DeviCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 123The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a court, while deciding an application for police assistance, can only grant or refuse such assistance for implementing its order and cannot direct police officers to ascertain the actual situation on the spot.Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “….by no stretch of imagination in such an application, the Court can direct an Officer or Official of a Department, may be the Police Department, to visit the spot and ascertain the actual situation on the spot, as has been done in the present case by the learned Court below.”HP High Court Denies Bail To Accused In ₹500 Crore Crypto Fraud, Says Public Interest Must Be Considered In Cases Involving Grave Economic OffencesCase Name: Abhishek Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 124The Himachal Pradesh High Court has denied bail to the accused involved in a ₹500-Crore Cryptocurrency Fraud Case, holding that economic offences of such huge magnitude, which have a deep-rooted conspiracy and cause massive public loss, must be viewed seriously, and mere prolonged custody or trial delay is not a sufficient ground for bail.Rejecting the Bail Application, Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “The economic offences are considered grave offences as they affect the economy of the country and such offences are to be viewed seriously. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and the State”.When Purpose Of Police Remand Is Clearly Stated, Trial Court Can't Dictate Manner Of Probe: HP High Court Quashes Adverse Remarks Against CopsCase Name: State of H.P. V/s Manav SharmaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 125The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside orders of a trial court, that refused policy custody of an accused in a communal violence case and also expunged adverse remarks made by the trial court that branded the investigation as “myopic” and “mala fide.”Setting aside the Trial Court's order Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “The purpose, for which, the police remand has been sought, has specifically been mentioned and to investigate the matter, is the sole prerogative of the police. The Court cannot issue direction to the police not to investigate the matter, in a particular manner”.Maternity Leave Sanctioned During Contractual Service Cannot Be Curtailed Due To Submission Of Fitness Certificate During Regularisation: HP HCCase Name: Kamini Sharma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 126The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that maternity leave, sanctioned while an employee was on contractual service, could not be curtailed merely because she submitted a medical fitness certificate at the time of regularization. Quashing the State's order that cancelled the leave Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that : “submission of Medical Fitness Certificate, could not have given any right to the respondents to curtail the Maternity Leave of the petitioner granted to her w.e.f. 21.8.2021, for a period of 180 days.”Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Can't Be Rejected Due To Missing Khasra Numbers In Eviction Petition: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Name: Puran Prakash Goel & another v/s Chaman Lal VaidyaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 127The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the omission of certain khasra numbers in an eviction petition does not amount to non-disclosure of cause of action and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11, 2025 To August 17, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags