Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21, 2025 To July 27, 2025

Nominal Index: Raju Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 97 Rama Devi & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 98 Rishi Raj v/s Ram Krishan & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 99 Amar Nath v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 100 Farooq Ahmad v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 101 Jogindra v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 102 Justice (Retired) V.K. Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 103 Savita Guleria v/s H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 104 Retrospective Regularization Of Class-III Employees Counts For Pension Benefits In line with Precedents Applicable To Class-IV : Himachal Pradesh HC 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 97 Case Name: Raju Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 97 The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that a Class-III employee, whose services were regularized retrospectively, is entitled to pensionary benefits by counting the qualifying period from the date of retrospective regularization. Further the benefit of judgments granting pension to Class-IV employees can be extended to similarly placed Class-III employees. HP High Court Orders Inquiry Into Lawyer For Allegedly Withdrawing MACT Compensation By Misusing Client's Signature 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 98 Case Name: Rama Devi & Others. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 98 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered an enquiry into a lawyer, after the appellants in an MACT appeal case alleged that their former advocate misused their signatures and fraudulently withdrew accident compensation money. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur said: “Direct the Chairman, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh as well as Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to look into the matter personally and ensure to take complaint/application to its logical end, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner and to communicate the action taken on the complaint to applicant No.1-appellant immediately as well as to this Court through Registrar (Judicial) well before next date of hearing.” Insurance Company Can't Deny Compensation Citing Invalid Employer-Employee Relationship Between Family Members Without Evidence: HP High Court 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 99 Case Name: Rishi Raj v/s Ram Krishan & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 99 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that close family ties do not prevent a valid employer–employee relationship under law if it is supported by credible evidence on record. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed “It has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court that technically there is possibility that husband and wife can have relation of employer and employee. It is apt to notice that relation of husband and wife is more closer than the relation of brother, as both of them being partners of life, in normal circumstances, cannot be expected to work as employee and employer, however, despite that it has been observed by the Supreme Court that such relationship is possible”. NDPS Act | Mere Presence Of Contraband In Taxi Doesn't Prove Driver's Guilt: Himachal Pradesh High Court 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 100 Case Name: Amar Nath v/s State of Himachal Pradesh. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 100 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a taxi driver cannot be held liable for possession of contraband under the NDPS Act merely because illegal substances were found in the vehicle he was driving, when there is no prima facie evidence showing that he had knowledge or involvement in its transportation. Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The status report does not show that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. The material on record is prima facie insufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime; therefore, it cannot be said that he would indulge in the commission of a crime in case of his release on bail.” 'Maybe In Bad Taste, But Do Not Incite Violence': HP HC Grants Bail To Man Charged U/S152 BNS For Sharing Videos Allegedly Insulting PM, Army 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 101 Case Name: Farooq Ahmad v/s State of Himachal Pradesh Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 101 The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Farooq Ahmad, who was arrested for allegedly sharing videos on Facebook that contained insulting comments about the Prime Minister of India and the Indian Army. The Court held that mere sharing of such videos, in the absence of any incitement to violence or public disorder, does not prima facie attract the offences of sedition or promoting enmity. Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The video recording of the Facebook posts was played in the Court. They may be in bad taste, but they do not tend to incite any person to violence or create disturbance in public peace. Hence, prima facie, the applicability of Sections 152 and 196 ...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21, 2025 To July 27, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags