Important Judgments of Himachal Pradesh High Court (2025) - Legal Bites Year Update

Legal Bites presents a thoughtfully curated collection of key judgments delivered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2025, reflecting the Court’s active role in safeguarding constitutional values, protecting service and employment rights, resolving labour disputes, enforcing criminal liability, and upholding procedural discipline. Through these decisions, the High Court has reaffirmed settled legal principles while ensuring their effective application in changing social and legal contexts.

This compilation offers readers a structured and accessible overview of the Court’s evolving jurisprudence and its continued commitment to substantive justice.

Important Judgments of Himachal Pradesh High Court (2025) - Legal Bites Year Update

1) Aadhaar Card Cannot Defeat POCSO Prosecution

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Rishi Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) held that an Aadhaar card cannot be treated as conclusive proof of age and cannot be used to defeat prosecution under the POCSO Act. The Court ruled that age must be determined in accordance with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which prioritises birth certificates and school records and does not recognise Aadhaar as a valid document for determining age.

2) Retirement Cannot Defeat Promotion Due Before Superannuation

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority v. Roop Lal Verma & Anr. (2025), clarified that promotional benefits cannot be denied solely on the ground of retirement when the entitlement had arisen during service. The Court held that if juniors were promoted while the employee was still in service, retirement does not defeat the senior employee’s accrued right to promotion, and accordingly directed the Authority to grant notional promotion with all consequential benefits.

3) Married Daughters Entitled to Compassionate Appointment

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Savita v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2025), held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment solely on the ground of her marital status. The Court ruled that such exclusion is arbitrary and discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

It clarified that marriage does not sever a daughter’s status as part of her parental family for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and that income assessment must include all natural heirs, including married daughters.

4) Pension Income Does Not Defeat Landlord’s Bona Fide Need

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Tulsi Ram v. Mustaq Qureshi (2025), held that a landlord’s receipt of pension cannot be used to negate a genuine claim for eviction based on bona fide requirement. The Court clarified that pension is not a perpetual or inheritable source of income and cannot override a landlord’s legitimate need to expand an existing business or settle a dependent family member.

Reiterating the settled principle that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirements, the Court refused to interfere in revision and upheld eviction, emphasising that financial stability alone does not defeat bona fide necessity under the rent control law.

5) PG Diploma is not Equivalent to PG Degree for Promotion in Medical Teaching

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Dr. Sunil Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2025), held that a postgraduate diploma cannot be treated as equivalent to a postgraduate degree for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor under the Himachal Pradesh Medical Education Service Rules, 1999. The Court ruled that the Rules expressly require a recognised PG degree (MD/MS or equivalent), and therefore, teaching experience gained after a PG diploma cannot be counted toward the mandatory three years’ experience “after post-graduation.”

6) Absence of Industrial Dispute Bars Government Reference to Labour Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Auckland House School & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2025), held that the government cannot refer a matter to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unless an industrial dispute actually exists or is apprehended. The Court quashed a corrigendum that sought to add the issue of employees’ termination to an earlier reference, even though no demand notice or conciliation had been undertaken on that issue. It ruled that introducing a new dispute suo motu through a corrigendum is illegal, while clarifying that the affected workmen may independently seek remedies under Section 2A of the Act.

7) Offence Under Section 138 NI Act Not Wiped Out by Subsequent Payment

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in M/s New JCO & Anr. v. Utkarsh Sharma (2025), held that once the statutory notice period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 expires without payment, the offence of cheque dishonour is complete in law.

The Court clarified that a payment made after the expiry of the notice period, even if before the filing of the complaint, does not extinguish criminal liability, though it may be considered at the stage of sentencing or compounding. Rejecting the plea for quashing, the Court emphasised that allowing subsequent payment to erase the offence would defeat the objective of ensuring financial discipline and credibility of cheques.

8) Urgent Interim Relief Cannot Be a Pretext to Skip Mandatory Mediation

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Ltd. & Ors. (2025), held that a commercial suit filed without complying with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is barred by law when the plea of “urgent interim relief” is merely a camouflage. The Court found that Zydus had knowledge of the alleged trademark infringement since 2023 and yet approached the court only in 2025, without demonstrating any genuine or qualitative change justifying urgency.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams