Himachal Pradesh High Court Digest 01 to 31, October 2023

Himachal Pradesh High Court Digest 01 to 31, October 2023

Nominal Index

Adarsh Rani Bedi Vs. Shashi Pal Sharma
2023 STPL(Web) 274 HP: Recovery Suit – Acknowledgement of a debt and a liability

Bindro Devi Vs. State Of H.P. And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 233 HP: Service Law – Appeal against appointment beyond limitation

Sh. Bhavikbhai Vs. Smt. Priya Kumari
2023 STPL(Web) 243 HP: Consumer – Execution

Shri Bhupender Kumar Vs. Shri Raj Kumar & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 256 HP: Interim Relief – Parameters not seen while granting        

Bhupeshwari Devi And Others Vs. Ram Krishan
2023 STPL(Web) 270 HP: Rejection of Plaint – No issue required to be framed as only plaint is to be seen

Bala Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs Vs. Simroo (Deceased) Through His Lrs Purshotam Dass And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 272 HP: Partition –Injunction

Bala Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs And Others Vs. Simru Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs
2023 STPL(Web) 279 HP: Closing of Evidence – Valid

Champa Devi Vs. Nand Lal & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 246 HP: Will – Estranged Relationship

The Director Of Himalaya Communications Ltd. And Others Vs. The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors.
2023 STPL(Web) 249 HP: Transfer of Petition – National Lok Adalat

Gurdev Singh & Others Vs. Narinder Singh & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 234 HP: Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Barred

Hardik Chawda Vs. State Of H.P. & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 238 HP: Quashing of FIR – NDPS

H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Roop Lal And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 244 HP: Service Law – Promotion

Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation Vs. Messers Luxmi Furnitures And Saw Mills
2023 STPL(Web) 267 HP: Limitation – Attachment of Land

Har Devi Vs. State Of H.P. And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 268 HP: Service Law – To regularize services retrospectively

H.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. M/S Hindustan Construction Company Limited
2023 STPL(Web) 277 HP: Arbitration – Fault in design

Inder Singh Guleria Vs. Union Of India & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 283 HP: Service Law – Promotion

Jeet Kumari Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 236 HP: Service Law – Recover

Jia Lal Vs. Jia Lal (Deceased) Through Lrs And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 252 HP: Practice and Procedure – Non bringing of Legal Representative

Krishan Kumar And Another Vs. Sunita Kumari
2023 STPL(Web) 231 HP: Additional Evidence – Due diligence

Krishan Lal And Others Vs. State Of H.P. And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 285 HP: Additional Evidence – Allowed

Kamlesh Thakur Vs. Divya Jyoti
2023 STPL(Web) 254 HP: Maintenance – Disclosure of assets and liabilities

Smt. Kamla Devi & Others Vs. Munshi Ram (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 280 HP: Res judicata – Maintainability of appeal

Kalpana Thakur Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 257 HP: Service Law – Appointment

Krishan Lal Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 STPL(Web) 266 HP: Death by Negligence – Failure of brake

M/S Link Utsav Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 262 HP: Quashing of FIR – Dispute of Civil nature

The Land Acquisition Collector, Shahnehar Fatehpur And Another Vs. Rashpal Singh And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 258 HP: Land Acquisition – Same Compensation to Same Project

Mala Devi And Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 241 HP: MACT – Dismissal of claim

Managing Director, H.P. State Electronic Development Corporation Vs. Devbanti Negi & Ors.
2023 STPL(Web) 271 HP: Service Law – Pension to Corporation employee

Nr Hospital Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 237 HP: Drug License – Suspension of

Naresh Kumar Vs. Joginder Singh
2023 STPL(Web) 264 HP: Quash allowed – Legally Enforceable Debt or liability

Om Prakash Vs. Hrtc & Another
2023 STPL(Web) 284 HP: Infructuous due to subsequent events – Disposed of

Principal Secretary (Revenue) To The Govt Of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Ramka
2023 STPL(Web) 253 HP: Land Acquisition – Oral Consent

Pratap Singh Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 STPL(Web) 282 HP:

Ramesh Vs. Sudesh Mokta
2023 STPL(Web) 251 HP: Contempt – Violation of undertaking

Ram Naresh Vs. Santosh Bala
2023 STPL(Web) 273 HP: Quash not allowed – Prima facie Case

Roshan Lal Vs. Rakesh Kumar
2023 STPL(Web) 239 HP: Condonation of Delay – Delay in filing appeal

Roop Lal Vs. State Of H.P. & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 255 HP: Service Law – Pension

Raj Kumar Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 281 HP: Service Law – Diploma from distance education

Shamsher Kalta & Others Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 276 HP: Breach of Peace – Validity of Proceedings

Suram Singh Vs. Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation & Ors.
2023 STPL(Web) 232 HP: Service Law – Promotion

Sohan Lal Vs. Subhash Chand And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 240 HP: Additional Evidence – Not allowed

M/S Sanya Enterprises Vs. Sh. Ranjeet Singh And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 235 HP: Rejection of Plaint – Expiry of Limitation

Satpal Singh Satti & Others Vs. State Of H.P. & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 247 HP: Writ – Curable defect

Sant Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 250 HP: Service Law – Recovery

Sushil Kumar Vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation And Another
2023 STPL(Web) 261 HP: Limitation – Recovery of Loan

Sita Ram Vs. Prema Wati And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 278 HP: Will – Territorial jurisdiction – Lack of

State Of HP And Others Vs. Balbir Singh And Others
2023 STPL(Web) 242 HP: Land Acquisition – Delay

State Of H.P. Vs. Anubhav Awasthi
2023 STPL(Web) 245 HP: Food Adulteration – Probation of offenders Act

The State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Chet Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs And Another
2023 STPL(Web) 265 HP: Land Acquisition – Trees

The State Of H.P. & Ors Vs. Karam Chand & Anr
2023 STPL(Web) 269 HP: Land Acquisition – Withdraw for acquisition not valid

United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Kunta Devi & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 275 HP: Employee Compensation – Liability of insurer

Smt. Vijay Laxmi & Another Vs. Sh. Dharam Pal
2023 STPL(Web) 248 HP: Rejection of Plaint – Not rejected

Vishal Bukhta Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 259 HP: Service Law – Appointment

Vinay Kumari Vs. State Of H.P. & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 260 HP: Service Law – Non adherence of natural justice when not fatal

Yoginder Kumar Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 STPL(Web) 263 HP: Bail – NDPS

Subject Index

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34, 37 – Arbitration – Fault in design – IS Standard – Challenge to award – Held: The claimant was required to adhere to IS Code Standard and where the standards were not provided, the recourse was to be had to international standards. In the present case, the BIS standard was available. M/s LII did not state that the design was not as per the Indian Standard Codes and trade practices. It relied upon the Burenkova Theory, which is not included in the Bureau of Indian Standards. Therefore, the claimant could not have been asked to adhere to a standard, which was not provided in the contract. (Para 29) H.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. M/S Hindustan Construction Company Limited: 2023 STPL(Web) 277 HP

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34, 37 – Arbitration – Opinion of dissenting member – The opinion of the dissenting member cannot be treated as an award (Para 31) H.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. M/S Hindustan Construction Company Limited: 2023 STPL(Web) 277 HP

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34, 37 – Arbitration – Additional Work or Part of Contract – Plea the award related to Additional work of “Permeation Grouting” is not valid and that work was included in contract – Held:  The learned Arbitral Tribunal held that providing the “Permeation Grouting” was not part of the Indian Standards. Nothing was brought to the notice of this Court to show that the permeation grouting is included in the Indian Standard for barrage.

Learned Arbitral Tribunal had rightly relied upon the Indian Standard and the report of the Indian expert rather than the Burenkova Theory, the validity of which is yet to be established. Therefore, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the learned Arbitral Tribunal that permeation grouting was an additional work and was not included within the scope of the work.(Para 36, 37) H.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. M/S Hindustan Construction Company Limited: 2023 STPL(Web) 277 HP

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34, 37 – Arbitration – Award of interest – Objection against awarding interest by arbitrator – Held: In the present case, the contract does not prohibit the award of the interest. Therefore, no error was committed by the learned Tribunal in awarding the interest. The arbitrator has the discretion to award post-award interest – Therefore, even in the absence of the mentioning of interest in the award, the claimant is entitled to 18% interest, and the learned Arbitrator cannot be faulted for awarding interest @15% per annum for the post-award interest. (Para 39, 40, 41) H.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. M/S Hindustan Construction Company Limited: 2023 STPL(Web) 277 HP

Civil

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 41 Rule – Additional Evidence – Due diligence – It was asserted that the document was not within the knowledge of the applicants/defendants and the same could not be produced. This is factually incorrect. The copy of the document sought to be produced on record was filed before the learned Trial Court as Mark-A, therefore, the document was not any available but its copy was also filed before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the plea taken by them that they could not produce the document before the learned Trial Court because the existence of the document was not known to them is not correct. The defendants had failed to satisfy the requirement that they could not produce the document before the learned Trial Court despite the exercise of due diligence; therefore, the application for additional evidence was rightly dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. (Para 20, 21) Krishan Kumar And Another Vs. Sunita Kumari: 2023 STPL(Web) 231 HP

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Will – Execution of – Plea that the Will was executed in English and Punjabi. The Will in Punjabi was signed by two persons and there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. This submission is not acceptable.

The witness has only referred to the Will, which is in English. He has not proved the Will in Punjabi. He has not stated that the deceased had put his thumb mark on the Will in Punjabi and the attesting witnesses had also put their signatures in the presence of Rikhi Ram on the Punjabi version. Therefore, his statement does not prove the due attestation of the Will in Punjabi. This witness has also not stated that the Will in Punjabi was thumb-marked in his presence. He did not say tha the and other witnesses had put their signatures on the Punjabi version in the presence of the testator. Hence, the statement of this witness does not prove the due execution of the Will in Punjabi. Execution of Will not proved. (Para 25, 26, 28)

Will – Admission by plaintiff – Plea that the plaintiff did not dispute the execution of the Will. Plea rejected – Held: If the plaint is read in the whole, it shows that the plaintiff had disputed the execution of the Will and it cannot be said that there was any admission on the part of the plaintiff. (Para 39, 40) Krishan Kumar And Another Vs. Sunita Kumari: 2023 STPL(Web) 231 HP

Possession – Admission – Plea that the plaintiff admitted that she was in possession and the learned Courts below had erred in granting the decree of possession. Plea rejected – Held: The plaintiff indeed asserted on oath that she was in possession; however, this fact was disputed by the defendants, who claimed their possession. They led the evidence and asserted that the plaintiff was residing with her mother and the defendants were in possession. Once the defendants asserted their possession, learned Courts below cannot be faulted for finding them in possession and delivering the possession to the plaintiff who was found to be the rightful owner.(Para 41) Krishan Kumar And Another Vs. Sunita Kumari: 2023 STPL(Web) 231 HP

H.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, 1971 – Section 57 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Barred – Plea that the land was partitioned by the Consolidation Authorities and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to hear and entertain the dispute arising out of the consolidation is barred under Section 57 of the H.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act. – Plea accepted – Held: The very premise of the learned Courts below that revenue entries were incorrect and Consolidation Authorities had proceeded on the basis of incorrect revenue entries conferring the jurisdiction on the Civil Court is incorrect and both the learned Courts below erred in returning the holding that Civil Court had jurisdiction to question the orders passed by the authorities exercising the powers under H.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. (Para 15, 23) Gurdev Singh & Others Vs. Narinder Singh & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 234 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Additional issue – Non framing of – Issue for Rejection of the Plaint – Held: Once the learned Trial Court had held that it had the jurisdiction, it had rejected the plea of the defendants that the plaint was liable to be rejected because the jurisdiction was barred. Thus, a finding was recorded by the learned Trial Court that it had the jurisdiction meaning thereby the plaint was not liable to be rejected. No prejudice was caused to the defendants as the issues related to the jurisdiction and rejection of the plaint were virtually the same issues and there was no failure of justice.(Para 24) Gurdev Singh & Others Vs. Narinder Singh & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 234 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Civil Procedure – Necessary Party – Plea that courts below have fallen in error of law and jurisdictions in not dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents when State of Himachal Pradesh being a necessary party was not joined in suit – Held: The plaintiffs claimed that they had surrendered the land. This order was reviewed. The Consolidation Authorities had wrongly partitioned the land. Their claim was duly supported by the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. They did not claim any relief against the State of H.P. They were aggrieved by the fact that the land was wrongly partitioned during the consolidation operation. It was not necessary to join the State of H.P. to adjudicate such a claim. Hence, the suit is not bad for nonjoinder of State of H.P. and this substantial question of law is answered in negative. (Para 25) Gurdev Singh & Others Vs. Narinder Singh & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 234 HP

Specific findings – Specific findings about the actual physical possession over the Suit land – Plea of not recording any specific findings about the actual physical possession over the suit land – Plea rejected – Held: Trial Court held that in para 10 the plaintiffs were admittedly in possession of the suit land and they were declared exclusive owners in possession of the suit land. This finding was upheld by the learned First Appellate Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that no specific findings were recorded regarding the possession of the plaintiff (Para 13, 26) Gurdev Singh & Others Vs. Narinder Singh & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 234 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Expiry of Limitation – Cause of action in 2006 – Suit filed in 2021 – Agreement to sell witnessed by one of the partners of plaintiff firm – Not acceptable that they do not know about sale deed – Held: The plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation. The suit of the plaintiff is clearly barred by law as the same could not be filed after the expiry of period of limitation.  (Para 19, 24, 26) M/S Sanya Enterprises Vs. Sh. Ranjeet Singh And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 235 HP

Drug and Cosmetics Rule 1945 – Rule 65(4)(4)(ii), 65(17), 65(4)(4)(i) – Drug License – Suspension of– Petition against – Inspection carried by drug inspector – Show cause for deficiencies – Personal hearing was also given – Suspension of license – Appeal to appellate authority also rejected – Held: order passed by the Appellate Authority demonstrates that it gave a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the order in appeal. It rejected the appeal by passing a reasoned order, in which, it referred to the shortcomings which were found during the inspection of the petitioner-Hospital, which could not be satisfactorily explained in response to the show cause notice. Therefore, as due process was followed by the authorities before passing the impugned orders and as the petitioner has not been able to point out that there was any violation of the statutory provisions, this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition. (Para 11, 12) Nr Hospital Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 237 HP

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay in filing appeal – Appeal against ex party judgement – Plea he comes to know about judgment only at time of execution – Plea rejected – Process server sworn statement on record with as per which petitioner wife refused to accept summons and service was done by pasting. Held: Service proved – No need of independent witness – Petitioner knows about suit – No Condonation of delay – Petition dismissed. (Para 23, 24) Roshan Lal Vs. Rakesh Kumar: 2023 STPL(Web) 239 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 7, Rule 14(3) – Additional Evidence – Not allowed – Petition against rejection of application for additional evidence – Held: The application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was as vague as it could have been. No cogent explanation was given therein as to why the documents in issue were not placed on record by the plaintiff earlier because the documents, description whereof was given in the application, were not such documents that plaintiff could not have placed on record earlier had he exercised due diligence. Besides this, as the suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration that Will dated 01.09.2009 is a forged and fabricated document, therefore also, it is not understood as to what was the relevance of these documents for the purpose of obtaining said declaration from the learned Trial Court.

The learned Court below is the correct view as indeed the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessity and relevance of the documents which he intended to place on record by way of application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the CPC. Therefore, learned Court below rightly rejected the application. (Para 7, 9) Sohan Lal Vs. Subhash Chand And Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 240 HP

Will – Estranged Relationship – Validity of Will – The human behaviour cannot have a uniform pattern. Sh. Thakur Dass was not being happy or satisfied with the conduct of his family members may have warranted their disinheritance. His choice on defendant cannot be questioned only for the reason that ample proof as to the degree of affinity was not there. That in the Will itself Sh. Thakur Dass had made mention of his strained relation with his family. Once the contents of the document have been proved to be genuine, they become relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. No material has been brought on record by the plaintiffs to discard the contents of the document i.e. Will – Will held to be valid.(Para 27, 29, 31) Champa Devi Vs. Nand Lal & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 246 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 1 Rule 12, Order 23 Rule 1 – Writ – Curable defect – Maintainability of Petition – Challenge to appointment of Chief Parliament Secretaries – Petition signed by only Petitioner No 1 and other petitioners are signed by their respective advocates – Defect in the Writ Petition which do not goes to the root of the cause, rendering petition not maintainable – it is a case where other petitioners have come forward, substantiating the claim of petitioner No.1 that the petition was filed under instructions of all of them by authorizing petitioner No.1 to sign and verify the pleadings and swear affidavit in support thereof. It was a curable defect, which stands cured by filing supplementary affidavits by petitioners No.2 to 12, ratifying and substantiating the claim of petitioner No. 1- Petition maintainable. (Para 4, 5, 35, 36) Satpal Singh Satti & Others Vs. State Of H.P. & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 247 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 7, Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Not rejected – Application regarding Rejection of plaint dismissed by Trial Court – Approach to High Court – Held: In the present case, after going through the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaint is either barred by law or is manifestly vaxatious or meritless and in fact as has been held by the learned Court below, the plaintiff deserves a chance to prove his case and the petitioners herein shall also get full opportunity as per law to put forth their contention so as to defeat the cause of the respondent herein. No rejection of plaint. (Para 10, 11) Smt. Vijay Laxmi & Another Vs. Sh. Dharam Pal: 2023 STPL(Web) 248 HP

Practice and Procedure – Non bringing of Legal Representative – Effect of – The appellant did not bring the legal representatives of plaintiff no. 6 on record, which means that the decree in her favour that she is the successor of Narayan Singh and the mutations based on the Will executed in favour of defendant no. 1 are wrong and has attained finality. If the appeal is continued, the Court cannot pass a contradictory decree that plaintiffs no. 1 to 5 are not the successors and the Will in favour of defendant no. 1 is valid.

Since the continuation of the appeal will lead to the passing of the conflicting decrees; therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the appeal will abate as a whole and not in part. Appeal is dismissed as having abated as a whole (Para 14, 15, 16) Jia Lal Vs. Jia Lal (Deceased) Through Lrs And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 252 HP

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Disclosure of assets and liabilities – Award of interim maintenance in favour of the respondent in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month without calling for the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court – Set aside – Remand Back. (Para 6, 7) Kamlesh Thakur Vs. Divya Jyoti: 2023 STPL(Web) 254 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39, Rule 1, 2 – Interim Relief – Parameters not seen while granting – Relief of interim injunction granted – Challenge to Held: While adjudicating an application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to see as to whether their exists a prima facie case in favour of the party, whether balance of convenience is in favour of the party and whether irreparable loss would be caused to the party in case interim relief, as prayed for, is not granted. If the Court is satisfied that these three ingredients exist, then appropriate orders are passed by the Court, otherwise the application is rejected. These parameters not followed by appeal court – Interim relief set aside – Remand back.(Para 4, 6, 7) Shri Bhupender Kumar Vs. Shri Raj Kumar & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 256 HP

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Limitation – Recovery of Loan – Finance of truck – on non-payment of loan, truck seized and auctioned – Recovery suit of balance amount after three years – Recovery barred (Para 16) Sushil Kumar Vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation And Another: 2023 STPL(Web) 261 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 21 Rule 54 – Limitation – Attachment of Land – Whether attachment time barred – Yes – Held: Taking the case of the petitioner at its best, the maximum period of limitation which could have been provided to the petitioner was 12 years from the date when the amount was ascertained as aforesaid, whereas, admittedly, in the instant case, the application, which was otherwise not maintainable, came to be filed far beyond the period of 12 years. (Para 13) Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation Vs. Messers Luxmi Furnitures And Saw Mills :2023 STPL(Web) 267 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 7, Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – No issue required to be framed as only plaint is to be seen – Appeal against Rejection of plaint accepted on ground that Trial Court was required to frame the issues allowing the parties to lead evidence and thereafter decide the matter as per law.- Held: The learned First Appellate Court erred in holding that the learned Trial Court was required to frame the issues allowing the parties to lead evidence and thereafter decide the matter as per law. This exercise was not warranted as only the averments in the plaints were required to be seen. Order set aside and the matter remitted back to the First Appellate Court, to decide the appeal as per law. (Para 19) Bhupeshwari Devi And Others Vs. Ram Krishan: 2023 STPL(Web) 270 HP

Partition –Injunction – Partition not proved so no injunction – Held: As per the judgment of this Court which was binding upon AC-1st Grade if the partition is not reported to the Revenue Authorities, they are not bound to act upon the same and the view taken by learned AC-1st Grade cannot be said to be bad. (Para 19, 31, 33) Bala Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs Vs. Simroo (Deceased) Through His Lrs Purshotam Dass And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 272 HP

Res judicata – Not made out – Held: The previous judgment did not pertain to the suit land and does not apply to the present case. Moreover, the plea of res-judicata cannot be established on the basis of a copy of judgment alone. Further held that in the absence of the pleadings in the previous suit, it cannot be held that the present suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata (Para 26, 28) Bala Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs Vs. Simroo (Deceased) Through His Lrs Purshotam Dass And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 272 HP

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 18 – Recovery Suit – Acknowledgement of a debt and a liability – Legally enforceable Debt or Liability – Limitation – Decree valid – Recovery based on cheque –Held: The payment by cheque which is dishonoured would amount to an acknowledgement of a debt and a liability. By necessary consequence, there will be saving of limitation as envisaged by Section 18 of the Act. (Para 31, 32) Adarsh Rani Bedi Vs. Shashi Pal Sharma: 2023 STPL(Web) 274 HP

Recovery Suit – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Recovery suit based on cheque – Acquittal in criminal case for dishonour of cheque related to same case – Held: the acquittal in the criminal case will not have any effect in the present proceedings and the defendant cannot take advantage of the same. (Para 30) Adarsh Rani Bedi Vs. Shashi Pal Sharma: 2023 STPL(Web) 274 HP

Will – Territorial jurisdiction – Lack of – Held: the learned First Appellate Court had rightly held that the objection regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be taken during the appeal unless there is a consequent failure of justice and since no failure of justice was shown; therefore, the objection cannot be raised during the appeal. (Para 22, 24) Sita Ram Vs. Prema Wati And Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 278 HP

Will – Contradictions in evidence – Plea  that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses due to which the execution of the Will is suspect. Held: This submission is not acceptable. The Will was executed on 26.11.1991. The witnesses deposed in the year 2000 after the lapse of nine years. Human memory fails and contradictions are bound to come with the passage of time.(Para 30, 32) Sita Ram Vs. Prema Wati And Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 278 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 17, Rule 1 – Closing of Evidence – Valid – Non production of evidence despite various opportunities and adjournments – Closing of evidence valid – Held: The Courts cannot act in breach of the law which they are bound to uphold. When three adjournments had already been granted and no reasonable cause was assigned for seeking an adjournment, the Court had no option but to close the evidence and it cannot be said that the Court had acted wrongly in closing the evidence of the defendants.(Para 21, 22) Bala Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs And Others Vs. Simru Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs: 2023 STPL(Web) 279 HP

Res judicata – Maintainability of appeal – Plea that the present appeal is barred by the principle of res judicata – Held: This submission cannot be accepted – the principle of resjudicata applies to the original proceedings and not to the appellate proceedings. (Para 19) Smt. Kamla Devi & Others Vs. Munshi Ram (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 280 HP

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Lis Pendes – Sale during injunction – Validity of – Plea the Sale Deed was executed on 21.06.1991 after the issuance of the injunction order and the same is void – Plea not accepted – Held: The breach of any injunction issued by any competent court would not automatically render the transfer whether by way of an absolute sale or otherwise ineffective. Therefore, the Sale Deed executed in spite of the injunction order is valid. (Para 29, 30) Smt. Kamla Devi & Others Vs. Munshi Ram (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 280 HP

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Compromise – Registration of – Held: By compromise created rights in their favour for the first time and such a compromise was required to be registered. In the absence of the registration, there will not be any valid conveyance of the title in favour of the appellants and the doctrine of lis pendens will not help them. (Para 38) Smt. Kamla Devi & Others Vs. Munshi Ram (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 280 HP

Infructuous due to subsequent events – Disposed of. ; Om Prakash Vs. Hrtc & Another: 2023 STPL(Web) 284 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Additional Evidence – Allowed – Held: On analysis of the entire material, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence sought to be adduced by the appellants by way of CMP No. 6891 of 2019 is necessary and essential for complete adjudication of the matter between the parties and deserves to be allowed. The documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence are records of quasijudicial proceedings conducted by the Revenue Court under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. In any case, the respondents can always avail the opportunity to rebut the evidence sought to be adduced through the aforesaid application. (Para 20) Krishan Lal And Others Vs. State Of H.P. And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 285 HP

Family partition on mutual basis – Recognized Concept – Family partition on mutual basis of joint holdings is an established and recognized concept in Indian legal system. The severance of rights, title and interest on the basis of family partition has legal sanctity. The family partition can be oral and inferable from the surrounding facts. Any record of the terms of such settlement prepared subsequently is not subject to registration under the Registration Act and can be used as evidence for all collateral purposes. (Para 18) Krishan Lal And Others Vs. State Of H.P. And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 285 HP

Criminal

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20, 29 – Quashing of FIR – NDPS – owner of vehicle in which person caught with contraband – Held: In the present case, recovery was effected from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. He was in contact with the owner and the driver. Nothing has been alleged against the police as stated above; therefore, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. is frivolous, vexatious or instituted with an ulterior motive. No quashing of FIR. (Para 16)  Hardik Chawda Vs. State Of H.P. & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 238 HP

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16(1)(a)(i) – Probation of offenders Act, 1958 – Section 4 – Food Adulteration – Probation of offenders Act – Release of convict under Food Adulteration Act under Probation of offenders Act – Appeal against – Held: First Appellate Court erred in extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act in view of the prohibition contained in Section 20(AA) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Hence, the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court cannot be sustained. – Grant of benefit under Probation of offenders Act set aside.(Para 17, 19) State Of H.P. Vs. Anubhav Awasthi : 2023 STPL(Web) 245 HP

Indian Penal Code, Section 403, 406 – Quashing of FIR – Dispute of Civil nature – No offence made out – Cancelation report filed by police – Protest against cancelation report by respondent – No details of misappropriation as such no offence disclosed – Held: The enforceability of the agreement has been tried to be sought, by the complainant by lodging the FIR, which is not permissible, under the law. FIR quashed. (Para 32, 33, 35) M/S Link Utsav Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 262 HP

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1974 – Section 439 – Bail – NDPS – Petitioner Behind bar from four years and 7 months – 1/3 witness examined – Delay not attributed to accused – Bail granted (Para 10, 11, 14) Yoginder Kumar Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh: 2023 STPL(Web) 263 HP

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304A, 279 – Death by Negligence – Failure of brake – Rash and Negligent driving – Revision against conviction – Defence of failure of brake – Held: In the mechanical report, in column No.4, it has been mentioned by the person, who has mechanically examined the vehicle in question, that brake oil in the braking system was found to be low. Rest of the system was found to be in order. If this fact is seen in the light of the deposition made by PW-2, in the cross-examination, wherein, he has deposed that when, the vehicle rolled backwards, the driver tried to apply the brakes number of times, then, it can be said that accused is able to probabilise his defence. Conviction set aside  (Para 32, 34) Krishan Lal Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 STPL(Web) 266 HP

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 147 – Breach of Peace – Validity of Proceedings – Prayer to quash the order under Section 147 Cr PC – Plea that the order passed by the learned trial Court is without following the procedure; the order is without jurisdiction; no opportunity of being heard was given to the respondents therein. Held: The provisions of Section 147 (1) CrPC cannot be read in narrow sense, by holding, that the dispute with regard to the right of land and water can be taken into consideration, by the Executive Magistrate, while initiating the proceedings, under Section 147 CrPC. The Naib Tehsildar, has recorded the stand of both the parties and submitted the same to the learned trial Court. He has also recorded their statement, on oath. – No fault in proceedings. No quashing of order. (Para 25, 36, 41) Shamsher Kalta & Others Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 276 HP

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 439 – Bail – NDPS – Delay in trial – Petitioner Heart Patient – No other case on petitioner – Trial is not going to conclude soon – Bail granted. (Para 8, 18) Pratap Singh Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 STPL(Web) 282 HP

Compensation

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – MACT – Dismissal of claim – Dismissal of claim by MACT tribunal – Appeal against- Held: The petitioners had failed to prove their case on the balance of probability that the deceased had sustained injuries by the slipping of the marble caused by the negligence of the driver and the version of the respondents that the deceased had boarded the vehicle to unload the marble appears to be highly probable. Thus, no fault can be found in the reasoning of the learned Tribunal. – No relief – Petition dismissed. (Para 27): Mala Devi And Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar And Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 241 HP

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 25 – Consumer – Execution – Non-compliance of order that too, after the time granted – Non Bailable warrant – Petitioner neither complied the order nor assailed the same before the expiry of the period Held: Rather than complying with the conditions, the petitioner filed these proceedings and that too, after the time granted by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had expired. The conduct of the petitioner is self speaking that it is abusing the process of law. – No interference. (Para 4, 5) Sh. Bhavikbhai Vs. Smt. Priya Kumari : 2023 STPL(Web) 243 HP

Contempt

Contempt – Violation of undertaking – Not made out – In the instant case, petitioner has not been able to prove the violation of undertaking given to the Court. The allegation levelled by the petitioner has not been admitted by respondent. On analysis of the peculiar facts of the case at the touch stone of well settled legal principles, no case of contempt is made out. (Para 12, 16) Ramesh Vs. Sudesh Mokta: 2023 STPL(Web) 251 HP

Dishonour of Cheque

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Quash allowed – Legally Enforceable Debt or liability – Complaint of dishonour of cheque – As per complaint cheque issued to return Bribe money for employment – Payment of bribe for employment is for illegal purpose – No ‘Legally Enforceable Debt or liability – Complaint quashed (Para 21) Naresh Kumar Vs. Joginder Singh : 2023 STPL(Web) 264 HP

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – Section 138, 139  – Quash not allowed – Prima facie Case – Complaint of dishonour of cheque – Quash Petition – Plea that no legally enforceable debt or liability – Held: In present case, complainant is asserting legal enforceability of the agreement creating the liability upon accused to pay Rs.80 lacs to her. The agreement, issuance of cheques, dishonour of cheque and receipt of notice under N.I. Act and reply thereto are admitted facts. In reply also, issuance of cheques has been admitted with defence that part to be performed on the part of complainant has not been performed, whereas according to complainant, agreement has been acted upon and possession has been handed over to accused. All these contentions require to be decided on the basis of evidence led by parties. There is a legal presumption that when issuance of cheque and signatures are not disputed, the balance of convenience at the initial stage is in favour of complainant and accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during trial to rebut the presumption. No quashing. (Para 20) Ram Naresh Vs. Santosh Bala: 2023 STPL(Web) 273 HP

Family

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Disclosure of assets and liabilities – Award of interim maintenance in favour of the respondent in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month without calling for the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court – Set aside – Remand Back. (Para 6, 7) Kamlesh Thakur Vs. Divya Jyoti: 2023 STPL(Web) 254 HP

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Acquisition – Delay – Compensation – Delay and Laches in claiming compensation – oral consent of land owners for utilizing their land for construction of road by the State. Held: The State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and latches and also there cannot be a limitation to do justice. (Para 5)  State Of HP And Others Vs. Balbir Singh And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 242 HP

Land Acquisition – Oral Consent – It is not permissible to use the land of the person without his consent and if the consent has to be taken it has to be through an agreement in writing between that person and the competent authority. It is not permissible for the State to say that it had taken the oral consent of the owner. (Para 16, 18, 22) Principal Secretary (Revenue) To The Govt Of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Ramka: 2023 STPL(Web) 253 HP

Land Acquisition – Delay and Laches – The claim regarding Land Acquisition cannot be defeated on the grounds of delay and laches. (Para 23, 24) Principal Secretary (Revenue) To The Govt Of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Ramka: 2023 STPL(Web) 253 HP

Land Acquisition – Unlawful deprivation of Property– A person deprived of his property unlawfully is entitled to the restoration of the possession or the payment of compensation. (Para 30) Principal Secretary (Revenue) To The Govt Of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Ramka: 2023 STPL(Web) 253 HP

Waiver or Estoppel – Constitutional Rights – There can be no waiver or estoppel regarding constitutional rights Para 32 Principal Secretary (Revenue) To The Govt Of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Ramka: 2023 STPL(Web) 253 HP

Land Acquisition – Delay – Plea that the State has been in possession for more than 35 years and the plaintiff is not entitled to possession. Held: This cannot be accepted. The defendants are the State and its instrumentalities. the State cannot take the plea of adverse possession to grab the property of its citizens. If the protectors of the law will become grabbers of the property, then the people will be left with no protection and there will be total anarchy in the entire country. (Para 35) Principal Secretary (Revenue) To The Govt Of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Ramka: 2023 STPL(Web) 253 HP

Land Acquisition – Acquiescence – Non Payment of Compensation – Delay – Plea that plaintiff has acquiesced and is not entitled to the possession. This is not acceptable – Acquiescence does not confer any title. (Para 42, 43) Principal Secretary (Revenue) To The Govt Of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Ramka: 2023 STPL(Web) 253 HP

Land Acquisition – Same Compensation to Same Project – Challenge to award on ground of high compensation – Held: But natural, the land owners in the present case, were entitled to the same fair market value which was assessed as payable to the other land owners whose land was also acquired for the same project. It is settled law that if the land has been acquired for the same purpose, then, same fair market value thereof should be paid to the land owners herein irrespective of class and category of the land. Award valid. (Para 9, 10) The Land Acquisition Collector, Shahnehar Fatehpur And Another Vs. Rashpal Singh And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 258 HP

Land Acquisition – Trees – Compensation – Age of Trees – Appeal against compensation for trees – Compensation re calculated as per age of trees and looking to benefit according to life of trees to owner – Compensation reduced accordingly. (Para 34, 37) The State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Chet Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs And Another : 2023 STPL(Web) 265 HP

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48 (1) – Land Acquisition – Withdraw for acquisition not valid – Appeal against directions to the State to pay compensation to the writ petitioners in lieu of their land acquired by the State – Possession already taken – Now as per Section 48(1) State cannot withdraw from possession – Compensation to be paid for acquired land – Appeal dismissed. (Para 4) The State Of H.P. & Ors Vs. Karam Chand & Anr: 2023 STPL(Web) 269 HP

Labour Law

Transfer of Petition – National Lok Adalat – Transfer of Industrial dispute from one court to another by National Lok Adalat – Challenge to transfer – Held: Authority of the National Lok Adalat was only to decide the matter with the consent of the parties. No consent by both parties – National Lok Adalat,  had no jurisdiction in law to order the transfer of the industrial dispute from one Labour Court to another Labour Court – order set aside. (Para 10) The Director Of Himalaya Communications Ltd. And Others Vs. The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. : 2023 STPL(Web) 249 HP

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 4A(2) – Employee Compensation – Liability of insurer – Appeal against award by insurer – Insurance Company is seeking the immunity from paying the interest, in the absence of any clause, in the Insurance Policy. Held: Insurer liable to pay both compensation and interest. (Para 29, 30) United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Kunta Devi & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 275 HP

Service Law

Service Law – Promotion – Feeder Post for cashier and inspector – Promoted as cashier – Prior to issuance of office order, whereby the petitioner was promoted as Cashier, no option was taken from him in pursuance to the instructions – Direction to promote as inspector. (Para 10, 16, 19) Suram Singh Vs. Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation & Ors. : 2023 STPL(Web) 232 HP

Service Law – Appeal against appointment beyond limitation – Held: Appeal filed by the private respondent against the appointment of the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority beyond the period of 15 days as from the date of appointment/joining of the petitioner was not maintainable and respondents No. 1 to 6 are directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Part Time Multi Task Worker. (Para 12) Bindro Devi Vs. State Of H.P. And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 233 HP

Service Law – Recovery – Inadvertent Mistake by Employer – No fault of Employee – Class III/IV Employee – More than five years passed – Referring to Supreme Court judgment held that recovery from employee belonging to Class III and Class IV (Group C and D) is impermissible in law, especially, when there is nothing to suggest that the amount sought to be recovered was received by the employee concerned on account of his/her mis-representation.  Recovery Quashed – Direction to refund the amount, if any, recovered (Para 18, 19) Jeet Kumari Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 236 HP

Service Law – Promotion – Merit cum Seniority – LPA by employer against Single judge order allowing employees petition regarding promotion – Held: For determining the inter-se merit of the three officers, the DPC did not make its independent & objective assessment of the merit of the officers. The DPC only looked into the final gradings of the ACRs of these officers The DPC did not consider any other record of these officers.

Principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ cannot be inter-mingled with or allowed to be tinkered by the principle of ‘seniority-cum-merit’. Both concepts have different connotations and separate areas of operation.

Promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Block Development Officer on the basis of faulty recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, cannot be sustained. Learned Single Judge was justified in quashing and setting aside such promotion. (Para 5) H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Roop Lal And Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 244 HP

Service Law – Recovery – Excess Payment of Pension – Recovery by bank – Debited Bank Account of petitioner for recovery – Held: In the instant case, neither any notice was ever issued to the petitioner before effecting recovery nor option, if any, was ever given to him for payment in installments and order of recovery was issued after inordinate delay of seventeen years, which action of the respondent Board has been deprecated by Division Bench in S.S. Chaudhary in para 35(3), wherein it has been held that the recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued, is impermissible.

Recovery order set aside Respondent Bank is directed to deduct amount of Rs.7,35,465/- from the account of respondent Board (Employer) and remit the same into bank account of the petitioner, within two weeks, (Para 24, 25)  Sant Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 250 HP

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 to 18 – Service Law – Pension – Right to equality – Counting of Service rendered as daily worker – Based on Apex Court Judgment though on an application of the relevant Rules the appellants therein were not entitled to pension, however, on reading the Rules consistent with Articles 14, 38, 39 of the constitution of India and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality it was held that appellants therein were entitled to weightage of service rendered as daily wagers towards regular service for the purpose of pension – Direction to extend benefit of Daily Wage service to the petitioner, in terms of Sunder Singh’s case, as explained in Balo Devi’s case, for calculating qualifying service for the purpose of pension (Para 10, 22) Roop Lal Vs. State Of H.P. & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 255 HP

Service Law – Appointment – Plea against non-appointment – Held: Non mentioning of required subject in degree – Subsequent clearing after appointment of no use – Regarding plea of applicability of rules of it is held that Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that the Society or the College had adopted the rules of the department of Ayurveda. The employer will be the best Judge with respect to the suitability and eligibility of the candidates required to be employed by it. (Para 10, 11, 15) Kalpana Thakur Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 257 HP

Service Law – Bias – Allegation of bias in appointment – Held: But for bald averment no tangible material has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation. Still the attending facts are being scanned with a purpose to check the veracity of allegation. There is nothing to assume that selection committee had any bias against the petitioner or favouring the respondent. (Para 8, 11) Kalpana Thakur Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 257 HP

Service Law – Appointment – General (Ortho) Category – The merit list not drawn batch wise, Which is not as per court order – Direction to reframe the merit of the candidates under General Physically Handicapped (Ortho) Category. (Para 16, 18, 19) Vishal Bukhta Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 259 HP

Service Law – Non adherence of natural justice when not fatal – Withdrawal of Appointment – Whether the withdrawal of appointment of petitioner is vitiated solely on account of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice? Held: In order to succeed on the plea of nonadherence to the principles of natural justice, resultant prejudice has to be proved. In case, the application of principles of natural justice remains a mere formality, without there being any possibility of change in result, the non-adherence thereof is not always fatal. The petitioner has not been able to show that the grant of opportunity of being heard would have changed fortunes for her. No relief. (Para 13, 14) Vinay Kumari Vs. State Of H.P. & Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 260 HP

Service Law – To regularize services retrospectively – Rejection of claim by department – Approach to High Court – Held: The petitioner has not placed any material to show that a post was available for her regularization prior to 28.12.2006 i.e. the date on which she was actually regularized as a Clerk (Class-III). The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that any junior to her was regularized prior in time to her regularization. No protest at time of regularization – No relief (Para 4) Har Devi Vs. State Of H.P. And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 268 HP

Service Law – Pension to Corporation employee – Central Pension Rules – Scheme of pension accepted/approved by Corporation – Application for family pension made – If no option given than as per rules option for pension accepted – Pension to be paid – Appeal by corporation fails. (Para 25, 27, 28) Managing Director, H.P. State Electronic Development Corporation Vs. Devbanti Negi & Ors.: 2023 STPL(Web) 271 HP

Service Law – Diploma from distance education – Termination – Writ against – Held: The respondents have not been able to place any service rule on the record to justify their stand – it remains in the domain of uncertainty as to on what basis the diploma in Civil Engineering by the distance education mode was said to be an invalid qualification for the purpose of employment. The credentials of the State Level Board of Equivalence Committee has not been shown to be that of rule making body or having authority to make service rules. Writ allowed (Para 18, 20) Raj Kumar Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others: 2023 STPL(Web) 281 HP

Service Law – Promotion – No challenge to decision by which petitioner lost its seniority – No relief can be granted – Held: There is no challenge to the said decision in the instant petition and in absence of which, this Court will not adjudicate upon the legality of such decision and until the administrative decision is scrutinized and held to be bad in law, it cannot be said to be lacking in efficacy. It is trite that every Government servant is bound by the applicable service rules. That being so and petitioner once having accepted the service rules, as it is, his claim for seniority cannot be adjudicated as he has lost seniority by application of service rules and administrative decisions which have remained unchallenged. In fact, petitioner has already availed higher grades on the basis of mapping system adopted by the NIT. No relief. (Para 27) Inder Singh Guleria Vs. Union Of India & Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 283 HP

Service Law – Delay and Laches – Held: The conduct of petitioner in submitted further representations under the hope and expectation to get justice from his employer cannot be said to suffer from vice of laches. (Para 26) Inder Singh Guleria Vs. Union Of India & Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 283 HP

 

  ——