Click on Citation to See Full Text of Judgment

Nominal Index

Arpan Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & ors. : 2023 STPL(Web) 26 HP : Service Law – Answer Key

Champavati Vs. State of H.P. & ors. : 2023 STPL(Web) 28 HP : Service Law – Modification of order not allowed in review

Chitter Lekha Vs. General Public and Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 14 HP: Mental Health Act – Appointment of guardian for person of unsound mind

Dev Sanskriti Charitable Trust Kullu Vs. State of H.P. & Others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 5 HP : Transfer of Land of Lo cal deities in favour of third parties – Dismissed

Executive Engineer, I & Ph, Division, Bilaspur, H.P. Vs.  Sh. Ramesh Khaneja, Govt. Contractor: 2023 STPL(WEB) 10 HP : Arbitration – Award Valid

Ghunghriya Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others: 2023 STPL(Web) 18 HP2023 STPL(Web) 18 HP: Industrial Dispute – Delay of 24 years in approaching labour court

Gopal Krishan Vs. Dashodha & Others : 2023 STPL(WEB) 1 HP: Eviction Allowed

Joginder Kumar Vs.State of Himachal Pradesh: 2023 STPL(WEB) 3 HP: Bail Granted in Murder

Kehar Singh Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh: 2023 STPL(WEB) 9 HP: NDPS – Sample Not Representative – Offence Modified – Sentence Reduced

Lekh Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and others: 2023 STPL(Web) 20 HP : Bank Loan – Frivolous litigation instead of repaying the loan

Mast Ram and Others Vs.State of H.P. And others : 2023 STPL(WEB) 6 HP : Land Acquisition – New act not applicable

Manish Kumar Vs. State Of H.P. and others: 2023 STPL(Web) 21 HP: Service Law – Re instatement

 Meena Devi Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & anr. : 2023 STPL(Web) 19 HP : Service Law – Maternity Leave – Belatedly representation

Mukhtyar Singh Through His L.Rs. Vs. Harbans Singh and others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 4 HP: Successive Applications – Abuse of Process of Court – Dismissed with Cost

Nazeer Ahmed Khan Vs. State of H.P. & ors. : 2023 STPL(Web) 27 HP : Service Law – Premature retirement

Pankjakshi Sharma Vs. State of H.P & ors. :2023 STPL(Web) 17 HP : Service Law – Increment

Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another: 2023 STPL(WEB) 7 HP : Central Excise – Non Payment under Settlement Scheme due to glitch in server – Dismissed

Prem Lal Rao Vs. State of H.P. & others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 11 HP : Service Law: Re Employment – Rejection set aside – Reconsideration

Rajinder Kumar Vs. Mamita @ Mitu and others : 2023 STPL(Web) 25 HP : Rejection of plaint – Lok Adalat Award

Rakesh Awasthi Vs. Ritesh Sharma: 2023 STPL(WEB) 13 HP : Dishonour of Cheque – No interference in conviction

Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. State of H.P. and others: 2023 STPL(Web) 23 HP : Service Law – Promotion

Sandeep Vs. State of H.P. : 2023 STPL(WEB) 2 HP : Bail Granted in Murder

Sanjay Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar And others : 2023 STPL(Web) 24 HP : Police assistance to comply order

Sansar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 STPL(Web) 29 HP HP : Bail – Murder

State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. M/S Sab Industries Ltd. : 2023 STPL(Web) 15 HP : Arbitration – Challenge to award

State Bank of India and another Vs. Presiding officer and another: 2023 STPL(Web) 32 HP : Industrial Dispute – Compulsory retirement – Labour Court converted dismissal of Service to Compulsory retirement

Sunil Kumar @ Bobby Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh: 2023 STPL(Web) 30 HP : Bail –  Rape with minor

Sushma Aggarwal Vs. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal & ors.: 2023 STPL(Web) 16 HP : Civil Procedure – Recalling of witness

Surender Singh Vs. State of H.P. & others : 2023 STPL(Web) 31 HP : Service Law – Appointment – All the relevant questions had already been considered and decided

Union Of India & ors. Vs. Bhawani Dutt Sharma & ors. : 2023 STPL(WEB) 8 HP : Delay of Four years  – Unsatisfactory and Unconvincing reasons – Writ dismissed on ground of Delay

United Indian Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Ram Piari and others : 2023 STPL(Web) 22 HP : MACT – Award modified

Subject Index

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31, 34 – Arbitration award – Challenge to – Award relating to work contract – Plea of against public policy not accepted – Held: Admittedly, in the case at hand, record clearly reveals that claims, qua which claims (a) to (j) have been set out deals with various extra and substituted items which have been admittedly executed by the claimant, but neither rates were finalized by the employer nor rates offered/submitted by the claimant were rejected rather, the employer kept on making part payments. Award held to be valid – Rate of interest increased from 12% to 18% in line with provisions of S.31(7)(b), which clearly provides that sum directed to be paid by arbitral tribunal shall, unless where otherwise directed, carry interest at the rate of 18% from the date of award to the date of payment.(Para 38, 56): State Of Himachal Pradesh and Another Vs. M/S Sab Industries Ltd.: 2023 STPL(Web) 15 HP

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Arbitration Award – Escalation Cost – Challenge to Arbitration award – Award related to escalation cost in contract due to delay – Delay not attributed to contractor – Site made available to contractor with delay –  Clause 60 in the contract providing claim for variation of price – Held: The nature of award is more or less is a consent award, based on the admitted facts with respect to handing over the partial site and delay in handing over the complete site causing non-completion of the work within stipulated period. It is also admitted fact that work was completed within one year of handing over the complete site to the contractor. No scope of interference – Petition dismissed. (Para 6, 7, 8)Executive Engineer, I & Ph, Division, Bilaspur, H.P. Vs.  Ramesh Khaneja, Govt. Contractor – 2023 STPL(WEB) 10 HP

Bail

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34, 201, 302, 392 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 439 – Bail – Right of Speedy trial – Murder case – Petitioner behind bar from three years – Case based on Circumstantial Evidence – Main witness examined – Trial not going to complete in near future – Co accused already granted bail – Non previous history of crime – Striking the balance between the right of petitioner as also the public interest – Bail granted with conditions.  (Para 7 to 14) Sandeep Vs. State of H.P. : 2023 STPL(WEB) 2 HP

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34, 201, 302, 392 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 439 – Bail – Murder – Murder Case – Consideration of case – The cause of death of deceased Daya Ram is still unknown despite lapse of more than seven months. Though, the MLC of deceased Shri Daya Ram and subsequent postmortem report records an injury on the head, but there is no explanation for cause of such injury. Even the magnitude of such injury is still unknown. However, as suggested by postmortem report, the skull was found intact without any fracture. Only a minute subarachnoid hemorrhage was found present on the left parietal region. On the basis of material on record, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had acted in an inhuman and cruel manner. No criminal antecedent has been attributed to the petitioner. Bail granted with conditions. (Para 8, 9): Joginder Kumar Vs.State of Himachal Pradesh: 2023 STPL(WEB) 3 HP

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34, 302, 341, 323,504 and 506 – Bail – Murder – Petitioner behind bar from about two years – Bail Application – Held:  This court, having perused statements of material prosecution witnesses, finds that till date no direct evidence, if any, has emerged against the bail petitioner to connect him with the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In the statement of PW-4, there are a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies. this court finds that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than one year and 10 month but prosecution has been able to examine only 15 witnesses out of 38 witnesses and as such, this court has reasons to believe that 2-3 years would be taken by learned trial Court to conclude the evidence and if the bail petitioner is kept behind bars during this period, same would be amount to pre-trial conviction, which is not permissible in law. Bail granted with conditions. (Para 11, 12) Sansar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 STPL(Web) 29 HP

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(AB) – The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 75 – Bail – Rape – Rape with minor – Held: The very foundation of the case of the prosecution against the petitioner demonstrates that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and heinous. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offences is of course a matter of trial but at this stage, taking into consideration the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the stage at which the trial is, no case is made out to release the petitioner on bail. The Court concurs with the submission made by learned Deputy Advocate General that if released on bail, there is each and every possibility that the petitioner may try to win over and coerce the prosecution witnesses, which may adversely affect the course of trial and further the release of the petitioner at this stage will be highly intimidating to the victim and her family. Bail rejected. (Para 6) Sunil Kumar @ Bobby Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 STPL(Web) 30 HP

Civil

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of Plaint – Not allowed – Reason for amendment and impleadment of party related to Gift deed – Gift deed made from already portioned land which is in possession of respondent sought to implead – According to the respondents-defendants, in case they (respondents-defendants) have transferred some land out of their share, that would not give cause to the plaintiffs to add those transferees as parties to the case. It is not the case pleaded in the application that transfer by defendants is not from the portion of the land which came to their share after partition. Held: Learned Trial Court did not commit any error in dismissing the application.(Para 4) Mukhtyar Singh Through His L.Rs. Vs. Harbans Singh and Others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 4 HP

 Bank Loan – Calculations – Frivolous litigation instead of repaying the loan amount along with interest – General allegations that the amount as reflected in the statement of account is excessive. Similar stand has been taken by the guarantor, but, it has not at all been explained or for that matter argued how the calculations made by the respondent-bank are in any manner erroneous or incorrect or contrary to loan agreement or other documents executed between the parties. Petition dismissed. (Para 4) Lekh Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.: 2023 STPL(Web) 20 HP

Bank Loan – Liability of principal loanee and the guarantor – Held: Both the principal loanee and the guarantor, whose liability admittedly is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. (Para 6) : Lekh Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.: 2023 STPL(Web) 20 HP

 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment of Party – Successive applications – Dismissal of three successive applications on same point – Fourth applications – Held: Once plaintiffs’ previous application seeking impleadment of Ishan Kumar as defendant in the civil suit had been dismissed not once, not twice, but thrice and once by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there arose no question of allowing same prayer of the plaintiffs merely because it was his fourth chance. The plaintiffs are guilty of abusing process of the Court (Para 2): Mukhtyar Singh Through His L.Rs. Vs. Harbans Singh and Others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 4 HP

 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 1 Rule 10–Impleadment of Party – Incorrect factual averment– Reason for impleadment averred that petitioner has no knowledge of fact of transfer of land by party sought to implead – Record shows that petitioner was in knowledge of fact of transfer of land as legal notice in this regard served on him – Held:  The application now being filed for impleading Anik Katoch as party to the civil suit was based upon incorrect factual averment that plaintiffs were not aware of the transfer of the land. Learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the application. (Para 3): Mukhtyar Singh Through His L.Rs. Vs. Harbans Singh and Others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 4 HP

 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 – Order 18, Rule 17 – Civil Procedure – Recalling of witness – Rejection of application by trial court – Approach to High Court – Held: Recalling of witness for further elaboration on the left out points is wholly impermissible in law. Since in the case at hand, plaintiff was afforded due opportunity to cross-examine DW-9 and he has been already cross-examined qua all aspects of the matter, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below while passing order impugned in the instant proceedings. Petition Dismissed. (Para 13): Sushma Aggarwal Vs. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal & ors. : 2023 STPL(Web) 16 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 – Police assistance to comply order – Status quo – To implement the status quo order, so that nature of suit property is not changed in any manner during the pendency of the suit – Rejection of application by trial court – Approach to High Court – Held: Once, it had come to the notice of learned court below through report of Gram Panchayat Pradhan, that stones are stacked in front main door of applicant, there was no occasion for learned court below to reject the application filed by the plaintiff for police assistance. Till the time, status quo order is vacated/modified, the same is required to be complied with, in letter and spirit but since it was not being abided by the respondents, learned court below had no option but to order providing of police assistance to implement the status quo order, so that majesty of law is upheld. Trial Court order quashed and set aside and learned court below is directed to pass appropriate orders for providing police assistance to the plaintiff to ensure compliance of status quo order (Para 4, 9) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar And others: 2023 STPL(Web) 24 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 7, Rule 11 – Civil Procedure – Rejection of plaint – Lok Adalat Award – Rejection of plaint – That matter already settle in Lok adalat and subsequent suit having been filed by the plaintiff on similar set of circumstances to be rejected – Exception – Held: There cannot be any quarrel with the submission that in terms of judgment dated 18.1.2008, passed by Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others, Civil Appeal No. 522 of 2008, decided on 18.1.2008, award passed by a Lok Adalat can only be laid challenge by way of petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India but aforesaid law settled by Hon’ble Apex Court would not be attracted in the present case, because, in the present case, Lok Adalat having taken note of the compromise arrived inter se parties, passed a compromise decree dated 29.11.2003, which now is sought to be declared to be null and void on the ground that at the time of passing of said compromise decree, interest of the minor (plaintiff) was not protected by her natural guardian. Plaint rightly not rejected – Petition dismissed. (Para 3, 11) : Rajinder Kumar Vs. Mamita @ Mitu and others : 2023 STPL(Web) 25 HP

 Cost – Repeated applications – Repeated institutions of applications by the petitioners, many of them for the same purpose for which reliefs have already been declined to them by the Courts earlier, the civil suit filed in the year 2011 is still pending adjudication. Held: The petitioners are guilty of abusing the process of the Court. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. (Para 5): Mukhtyar Singh Through His L.Rs. Vs. Harbans Singh and Others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 4 HP

 Mental Health Act, 1987 – Section 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 76, – Mental Health Act – Appointment of guardian for person of unsound mind – Rejection of application – Approach to High Court – Held: Provisions contained under Ss. 51 and 52, if read in conjunction clearly suggests that application for appointment of legal guardian or manager in respect of a person of unsound mind can only be decided on the basis findings returned by learned District Judge qua the issue of unsoundness of mind of the person concerned which he/she would assess on the basis of report submitted by Assessors appointed in terms of S.50(4). No such exercise done – Rejection of application quashed and set aside, with a direction to learned court below to decide the question of unsoundness of Ms. Usha afresh, taking into consideration provisions contained under Ss. 50 to 54 of the 1987 Act. Petition stands disposed of in afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.(Para 11, 17): Chitter Lekha Vs. General Public and others : 2023 STPL(Web) 14 HP

Practice and Procedure – Three different orders on different dates in separate applications, Challenged in one order – Maintainability – Held: orders passed by the learned Trial Court on three different dates in three separate applications moved by plaintiffs were required to be challenged by moving separate petitions. Instant composite petition assailing all the above three different orders cannot be held to be maintainable. However, considering that civil suit is pending ever since 2011, the ill filed petition is being considered on the merits of its challenge to the impugned orders. (Para 1): Mukhtyar Singh Through His L.Rs. Vs. Harbans Singh and Others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 4 HP

 Compensation

 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 166 – MACT – Award modified – Funeral expenses reduced from Rs 25000/- to Rs 15000/-.  Award of Rs one lac under head loss of love and affection set aside instead Spousal Consortium in favour of respondent No.1 and parental consortium in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 @ Rs.40,000 each. Deceased was self-employed and his age was 59 year – Increase reduced from 15% to 10%. Total amount enhanced marginally. (Para 15 to 19): United Indian Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Ram Piari and oth: 2023 STPL(Web) 22 HP          

Cost

Cost – Repeated applications – Repeated institutions of applications by the petitioners, many of them for the same purpose for which reliefs have already been declined to them by the Courts earlier, the civil suit filed in the year 2011 is still pending adjudication. Held: The petitioners are guilty of abusing the process of the Court. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.(Para 5): Mukhtyar Singh Through His L.Rs. Vs. Harbans Singh and Others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 4 HP

 Dish of Chq

 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 482 – Quashing of Conviction – Appeal, Revision, SLP Failed – Maintainability of petition – Question that after the dismissal of the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the material question, which arises for determination by this Court is, whether this Court, can entertain the present petition?

Conviction in complaint of dishonour of cheque – Appeal, Revision and even SLP in Supreme Court dismissed – Plea for compounding and setting aside of conviction and sentence – Held: By way of the present petition, the accused want to reopen the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which has attained finality. Accepting the prayer, at this stage, would amount to nullify the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which has attained finality. Powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. do not warrant or mandate this Court to reopen the matter. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable before this Court. Petition dismissed. (Para 18, 21, 27) : Rakesh Awasthi Vs. Ritesh Sharma : 2023 STPL(WEB) 13 HP

Eviction

H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 – Section 24(5) – Eviction – Petition by one landlord maintainable – Revision against allowing eviction – Plea there is no owner of the property because property is joint and has not been partitioned and all owners have neither filed eviction petition nor have consented for that. Plea rejected – Held: It is more than settled that all landlords are not necessarily to file separate petitions or joint petitions by including all other landlords for eviction of the tenant by filing Rent Petition. Therefore, plea of tenant that other landlords/coowners have not filed the petition or consented to file the petition is not tenable in the eyes of law (Para 13, 15): Gopal Krishan Vs. Dashodha & others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 1 HP

H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 – Section 24(5) – Eviction – Bonafide requirement – Revision against eviction order – Held: Tenant has admitted that the photographs of the building (demised premises) and he has admitted that RCC structure of the building cannot be constructed without vacating the suit premises. He has also admitted that building in question is about 100 years old, constructed of mud and stone walls and its floors have been damaged. As a matter of fact, in cross-examination his admissions have substantiated the case and cause of landlords. Plea of Bonafide requirement of landlord established – Eviction order valid. (Para 16): Gopal Krishan Vs. Dashodha & others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 1 HP

H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 – Section 24(5) – Eviction – Arrears of rent – Tenant himself has admitted that he had not paid any rent to the landlords we.f. 13.09.2003. Admission of fact does not require to be proved and, therefore, admission of the tenant is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that he was in arrears of rent – Eviction order held to be valid – Revision against dismissed. (Para 20): Gopal Krishan Vs. Dashodha & others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 1 HP

 Labour Law

 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2A(3) – Industrial Dispute – Delay of 24 years in approaching labour court – Reasonable Period – by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a reasonable period – No relief can be granted. : Ghunghriya Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others: 2023 STPL(Web) 18 HP

Industrial Dispute – Compulsory retirement – Labour Court converted dismissal of Service to Compulsory retirement – Approach to High Court by both parties – Held: Thus, the material on record does not suggest that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are unwarranted or are perverse. We have also not found any material illegality or perversity in the impugned Award. Even learned Counsel for the Bank has not been able to point out any perversity in the impugned Award so as to vitiate the same.

While modifying the punishment from dismissal of service to compulsory retirement again the Tribunal has taken relevant factors in consideration. The past unblemished service record and extension in service granted to the workman by the Bank could not be said to be extraneous to the issue especially when there was no charge of financial mismanagement or misappropriation etc. against him.(Para 20, 21) State Bank of India and another Vs. Presiding officer and another : 2023 STPL(Web) 32 HP

Industrial Dispute – Jurisdiction of Labour Court – The Tribunal has been vested with jurisdiction to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. (Para 13) State Bank of India and another Vs. Presiding officer and another : 2023 STPL(Web) 32 HP

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4, 11A – The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(1), 24(2) – Land Acquisition – Applicability of Act – Supplementary Award – Houses and trees on acquired land – Land acquired in 2005 – Main award passed in 2008 – Supplementary award in 2022 – Plea that award should be under new Act – Hindrances caused by petitioner in evolution of houses and trees on acquired land – Held: Section 24 of the 2013 Act, prescribes the applicability of provisions of the 2013 Act where no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has been made. In the instant case, the petitioners cannot take the benefit of such provision as there was a validly made award by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act on 10.01.2008. The petitioners, evidently, did not take any effective steps for claiming compensation for the acquired houses/structures and trees. No relief granted – Petition dismissed (Para 7, 24, 26): Mast Ram and Others Vs.State Of H.P. and others: 2023 STPL(WEB) 6 HP

Limitation

Limitation – Delay of Four years in filing Writ – Writ after filling of contempt – Totally unsatisfactory and unconvincing reasons No Condonation of Delay – Dismissed. (Para 2, 6): Union of India & ors. Vs. Bhawani Dutt Sharma & ors. : 2023 STPL(WEB) 8 HP

NDPS

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20 – NDPS – Sample not representative – Seized quantity of charas more than two kg but sample sent to laboratory only 39 grams – Sample sent to laboratory not representative as from the statement of the Magistrate it is evident that no specific procedure was adopted for drawing a representative sample. Held: Since in the present case there is no evidence on record to establish that representative samples, out of the entire recovered contraband, had been drawn, hence, it can be said to be a case of recovery of only 39 grams of charas, which fall in the definition of Small quantity – Sentence modified from ten years imprisonment to one year.  (Para 9, 11, 18, 19, 20): Kehar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 STPL(WEB) 9 HP

Practice and Procedure

Practice and Procedure – Service Law – Modification of order not allowed in review –Modification in relief – Held: A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. Petition dismissed.(Para 4, 10, 11) Champavati Vs. State of H.P. & ors. : 2023 STPL(Web) 28 HP

Service Law

Service Law – Answer Key – Dispute regarding answer key – Staff Selection Commission filed compliance report, giving therein a detailed explanation alongwith documents in support of their claim. However, the petitioners would still contend that the answers as given by the respondents are still incorrect and are thus required to be rectified. Question is: what would be the scope of judicial review in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Held:The petitioners have not been able to show any provisions governing the process of selection from which they may grab the reliefs as claimed, rather the reliefs are not permissible and therefore, cannot be granted to the petitioners. Petition dismissed (Para 9) Arpan Sharma Vs. State Of H.P. & ors. : 2023 STPL(Web) 26 HP

Service Law – Re Employment – Rejection under wrong Rule – Assistant Police sub inspector  requested premature retirement due to family position – Request accepted – After two years family condition become favourable – Requested for re appointment – Rejection under Rule 12.24 of Punjab Police Rules, which provides re-enlisting as Constable only –While  case of petitioner was covered and to be considered under the provisions of Rule 12.25 of Punjab Police Rules – Claim of petitioner has not been rejected by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Direction to consider the case of petitioner afresh in the light of provisions of Rule 12.25 of Punjab Police rules and to take a decision accordingly in accordance with law on or before 16th August, 2023. (Para 13 to 20): Prem Lal Rao Vs. State Of H.P. & others : 2023 STPL(WEB) 11 HP

 Service Law – Increment – Enhancement of benefits – Assured Career Progression Scheme – Held: Application of petitioner rejected without application of mind – Since, the pay of the petitioner came to be enhanced twice on account of pay revision based on the recommendations of pay commission, benefit of financial upgradation in terms of provision contained under ACPS cannot be denied. Direction to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of financial upgradation under ACPS (4-9-14) time scale/enhancement after her having completed nine years of service at par with her counterparts. (Para 9, 10): Pankjakshi Sharma Vs. State of H.P & ors.: 2023 STPL(Web) 17 HP

 Service Law – Maternity Leave – Belatedly representation – Approach the authorities after 15 years – Held: when belatedly representation in regard to a stale or dead claim is considered and decided in compliance to the directions of the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing afresh cause of action for reviving “stale or dead claim or time barred dispute”, more especially when the court while directing the consideration of the representation has not at all adverted to the merits of the case, as is the factual situation obtaining in the instant case. Petition barred by delay and laches – Dismissed. (Para 1, 2, 21): Meena Devi Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & anr. : 2023 STPL(Web) 19 HP

 Service Law – Re instatement – Acquittal in Criminal case – Acquittal by trial court but appeal against acquittal pending in High Court – Held: Mere pendency of the appeal cannot be taken as a ruse for not considering the prayer of the petitioner for taking him back in service. Acquittal does not get annihilated by the mere pendency of appeal. – Writ petition is allowed to the limited extent that respondent No.3/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for his re-instatement/re-engagement in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from today. (Para 5, 6): Manish Kumar Vs. State Of H.P. and others: 2023 STPL(Web) 21 HP

Service Law – Promotion – None of the incumbents who were promoted as Head Teacher were granted promotional increments. Held: All the HTs in service on 01.10.2012 are constituents of one common block of HTs. It is an admitted factual position that HTs promoted prior to 01.10.2012 were not granted promotional increments wherein HTs promoted as such after 01.10.2012 have been granted promotional increments w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The respondents cannot restrict grant of promotional increment only to those HTs who got promoted as such after 01.10.2012. Petition allowed – The respondents are directed to release the promotional increments to the petitioners to the post of Head Teachers w.e.f. 01.10.2012/the date from which the promotional increment has been released to such of Head Teachers who were promoted as such after 01.10.2012. This exercise be carried out within six weeks. (Para 4, 5): Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of H.P. and others: 2023 STPL(Web) 23 HP 

Service Law – Premature retirement – Apply for premature retirement after 20 years of service – Application nor accepted neither rejected – Approach to High Court for direction to accept application for premature retirement – Held: Since there is no formal decision communicated by respondents No. 1 and 2 regarding acceptance or rejection of the request of the petitioner for his premature retirement, a direction is issued to these respondents to take a decision thereon and while doing so, it shall be open to respondents No. 1 and 2 to inquire into the conduct of respondent No.3 SDO (C) in regularizing the period of absence of the petitioner from duties, for which inquiry was otherwise contemplated and any other aspect as they may deem proper. it shall be open for respondents No. 1 and 2 to reject the request made by the petitioner for pre mature retirement or else accept the same as per law. (Para 9) Nazeer Ahmed Khan Vs. State of H.P. & ors.: 2023 STPL(Web) 27 HP

Service Law – Appointment – All the relevant questions had already been considered and decided. – Held: after having availed the remedy of filing Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and rejection thereof, the review petition on behalf of petitioner will not be maintainable. (Para 12, 15) Surender Singh Vs. State of H.P. & others : 2023 STPL(Web) 31 HP

 Taxation

Central Excise – Non Payment due to glitch in server – Scheme to settle the petitioner dues under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 – Prayer to take the amount after expiry of Scheme – Held:  Information of glitch in server  first comunicated, on 28th February, 2020, i.e. after the expiry of thirty days – Writ petition filed after more than two years – The futile attempt made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by putting forward the plea of restrictions imposed worldwide, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, is also not liable to be accepted. When, the other similarly situated declarants have made the payment online, then, accepting the said plea is not justifiable. No relief – Petition dismissed. (Para 21, 22, 23, 24): Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another : 2023 STPL(WEB) 7 HP