Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly RoundUp: March 6 - March 12, 2023

Nominal Index:

Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & ors Vs State of HP & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 10

Sh. Amin Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 11

Mohinder Singh Vs Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 12

Sunita Sharma Vs State Of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

Anita Aggarwal Vs State of HP 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 14

Judgements/Orders:

State Cannot Deny Pay Parity Of Veterinarians With Medicos Just Because They Deal With Animals: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & ors Vs State of HP & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 10

Observing that Veterinary Doctors are at par with Medical Doctors, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Thursday ruled that State cannot deny the grant of 4-tier pay scale to the Veterinary Officers on a flimsy ground, that they are dealing with animals and the doctors serving in the Health and Family Welfare Department are dealing with humans.

HP Land Revenue Act | Discretion Vested In Revenue Officer To Convert Itself As A Civil Court To Decide Plea Of Adverse Possession: High Court

Case Title: Sh. Amin Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 11

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that though for adjudicating the plea of adverse possession under Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, discretion is vested with the Revenue Officer (not below the rank of Assistant Collector 1st Grade) either to convert itself as a Civil Court or to decide it otherwise, but, the discretion so vested is judicial discretion and cannot be exercised capriciously.

The bench explained that since the authority exercises quasi judicial functions under section 163, the discretion mandatorily has to be exercised objectively. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade has to elaborate reasons, in case he decides against option to convert itself to a Civil Court, the bench underscored.

Article 311 | Every Conviction Cannot Entail Automatic & Mechanical Removal Of Convicted Employee: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Mohinder Singh Vs Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 12

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Monday ruled that the provisions contained in proviso (a) to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 certainly provide that on conviction an employee can be dismissed/removed/reduced in rank, without conducting any enquiry, but it cannot be construed that every such conviction shall be followed by an automatic and mechanical removal of the convicted employee.

Reservation Is Like Crutches- Provided Only To Weak; No Separate Reservation For All Sections Of Society: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sunita Sharma Vs State Of Himachal Pradesh.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that reservation may be equated with crutches which are not necessitated to be provided to healthy people but definitely to those who are not able or permitted to stand on their legs or whose legs are weak for deprivation of healthy atmosphere and equal status in the society. Therefore, there is no provision for providing separate reservation to all sections of society, it clarified.

"As a matter of fact "General Category” means all classes, including the categories for whom reservation has been provided. Seats meant for General Category cannot be filled by excluding any person of any category who is otherwise eligible and entitled for that on his own merit", Justice Thakur underscored.

Sec 102 CrPC | Police Officer Empowered To Seize Property Only If Found Under Circumstances Creating Suspicion Of Any Offence: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: Anita Aggarwal Vs State of HP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 14

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered defreezing of the account of an accused observing that Section 102 CrPC (Power of police officer to seize certain property) empowers the Police Officer to seize certain property on existence of a condition that the said property should have been alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence.

Deliberating further on the matter the bench observed that the commission of any offence or levelling allegations of commission of offence is not sufficient to freeze the accounts of a person except as permissible under law and that too when such pendency of investigation extends for an infinite period, particularly when the property is neither a suspected stolen property nor there is any nexus between the property, i.e. Bank accounts and the commission of alleged offence by the accused.