Quashing of Complaint: Vicarious Liabilty under Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashed

Picture of Stpl law

Stpl law

The petitioners—a pharmaceutical manufacturing firm and its individual partners—moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of a criminal complaint initiated against them under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, along with the subsequent order of cognizance passed directly by the Court of Session. The prosecution arose after a batch of tablets manufactured by the firm was declared to be “not of standard quality” by a government analyst.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the complaint and the summoning order against the petitioners. The Court held that vicarious criminal liability under Section 34 of the Act requires specific factual averments in the complaint showing each partner’s direct involvement in day-to-day operations, which was entirely lacking since the firm had formally designated technical staff for manufacturing. Furthermore, the prosecution was held to be fundamentally without jurisdiction because executive power under Chapter IV exclusively vests in State-appointed Drugs Inspectors, to the exclusion of Central Inspectors. Lastly, the testing delayed past the mandatory 60-day threshold under Rule 45 further invalidated the proceedings.

1. Facts of the Case and Procedural History

  • Sample Drawing: On August 28, 2019, a Central Drugs Inspector drew samples of “Medrofex-180” tablets manufactured by M/s Salus Pharmaceuticals (Petitioner No. 1) from a military hospital store in Jalandhar.
  • Adverse Testing: The sample was received by the Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory (RDTL), Chandigarh, on September 2, 2019, and the Government Analyst subsequently declared the drug “not of standard quality” in a report issued on December 5, 2019.
  • Prosecution and Stay: Following a tracking chain through various intermediate distributors and securing prosecution permission from the Drugs Controller General of India, a formal complaint was filed directly before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on March 3, 2022. The Sessions Court took cognizance and issued summonses on March 7, 2022, which the petitioners challenged, securing an interim stay from the High Court in September 2023.

2. Legal Threshold for Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Reviewing established legal benchmarks from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), the High Court reiterated that its inherent powers must be exercised sparingly and with deep caution. However, threshold intervention is entirely warranted to prevent a clear abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. Specifically, when a complaint contains vague, generalized allegations, or when an express legal bar completely obstructs the continuance of a flawed prosecution, the High Court is duty-bound to quash it to save citizens from a futile, protracted trial.

3. Strict Interpretation of Vicarious Liability (Section 34)

The criminal complaint was targeted collectively against the manufacturing firm (Accused No. 1) and its individual partners (Accused Nos. 2 to 5). The partners contended they had no personal connection to daily operations.

The High Court accepted their defense under a strict construction of penal statutes:

  • Twin Requisites of Responsibility: Under Section 34 of the Act (analogous to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act), a partner or director cannot be held vicariously liable merely by virtue of holding a corporate designation or status. The prosecution must show they were directly in charge of, and responsible to, the firm for the daily conduct of business.
  • Defective Averments: The Court observed that the complaint merely repeated bald, cursory statutory catchphrases without detailing any specific factual roles for individual partners.
  • Technical Staff Shield: Crucially, the firm had formally submitted Form No. 26 to the competent authority, appointing a dedicated Plant Manager and a separate, qualified technical team responsible for manufacturing and testing. Because daily manufacturing was executed under expert supervision, and the individual partners were completely isolated from everyday factory processes, vicarious liability could not legally attach to them.

4. Jurisdiction of Central vs. State Drugs Inspectors

The petitioners raised a fundamental constitutional objection regarding the administrative division of executive powers under the Act.

The High Court accepted this jurisdictional challenge, setting down the following boundaries:

  • The Chapter-Based Separation: Under the statutory scheme of the 1940 Act, executive powers are explicitly divided. The Central Government retains jurisdiction under Chapter III, which covers the import of drugs and cosmetics. Conversely, the executive functions under Chapter IV—which govern domestic manufacture, sale, and distribution—exclusively reside with the State Government.
  • Constitutional Mandate: In line with Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution of India, matters falling under the Concurrent List require express parliamentary authorization for the Union to exercise executive power within a State. Chapter IV contains no such blanket enabling provision for Central inspectors. Consequently, an investigation conducted and a complaint filed by a Central Drugs Inspector for manufacturing defects under Chapter IV is wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

5. Separation of Trial Forums and Rule 45 Violation

  • Direct Court of Session Maintenance Upheld: The petitioners argued the complaint was procedurally defective because it bypassed a Magistrate’s committal under Section 193 Cr.P.C.. The High Court rejected this specific argument, clarifying that Section 32(2) of the special statute expressly mandates that no court inferior to a Court of Session shall try Chapter IV offences. Therefore, directly instituting a complaint before a Special Sessions Court is procedurally correct and overrides general code restrictions.
  • Mandatory 60-Day Testing Violation: However, the Court highlighted a fatal defect under Rule 45 of the Drugs Rules, 1945. The rule strictly commands the Government Analyst to test and analyze samples within 60 days of receipt, or formally secure a timed extension from the government. In this case, the sample was received on September 2, 2019, but the adverse report was not issued until December 5, 2019 (spanning nearly three months) without any recorded explanation. This delay compromised the right of the accused to seek a timely re-analysis before the product’s shelf-life expired.

6. Final Order

Concluding that the prosecution’s case was bound to fail on multiple structural, procedural, and jurisdictional parameters, the High Court allowed the petition. It quashed and set aside Complaint Case No. 3/2022 along with the order of cognizance dated March 7, 2022, officially discharging all the petitioners.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 264

M/S Salus Pharmaceuticals And Others V. Union of India (D.O.J. 07.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Service Law: Correction of date of birth at the fag end of service career

June 2, 2026 No Comments

The petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Water Carrier in 2015 and later converted to a daily wage Water Carrier-cum-Peon in 2022, challenged her superannuation order dated December 30, 2023. She sought a direction to correct her date of birth in her service records from December 20, 1965, to July 1, 1967, which would effectively extend her service career.The High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that an employee cannot seek a modification of their date of birth at the fag end of their service career or after retirement. The Court held that under Rule 7.1 of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules (HPFR), 1971, a date of birth entered at the time of induction into government service becomes legally conclusive unless an application for correction is submitted within a strict statutory window of two years. The petitioner’s plea of having an illiterate and rustic background was rejected as a valid ground to bypass settled legal principles.

1. Facts of the Case and Dispute

  • Service History: The petitioner was offered an appointment as a Water Carrier at Rajkiya Primary School, Pohnaj. Due to third-party litigation, her appointment was finalized with effect from May 12, 2015. On March 21, 2022, her services were converted to a daily-wage Water Carrier-cum-Peon format.
  • The Discrepancy: In the official records of the Education Department, the petitioner’s date of birth was entered as December 20, 1965. The petitioner contended that her actual date of birth was July 1, 1967, and that the entry was an administrative mistake.
  • Timing of Relief: The petitioner submitted her first formal representation to the department on November 28, 2023. The Deputy Director of the department rejected the request and superannuated her on December 31, 2023, upon her reaching 58 years of age. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement, a time-bound decision on her representation, and consequential service benefits.

2. The Statutory Limitation Under Rule 7.1 HPFR

The State opposed the petition by relying strictly on the statutory timeline prescribed under the regional financial rules. The High Court systematically upheld this position:

  • Conclusiveness of Initial Entry: Under Rule 7.1 of the HPFR Volume-I, 1971, the declaration regarding the date of birth made by an employee at the time of entry into government service is deemed to be legally conclusive against them.
  • The Two-Year Window: The rule carves out a narrow exception allowing modification only if the government servant formally applies for a correction within a maximum window of two years from the exact date of entry into government service. Because the petitioner joined the department in 2015, her timeline to dispute the record expired in 2017.

3. Rejection of Claims at the “Fag End” of Career

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the department and the Court should adopt a sympathetic approach, asserting that the petitioner was a rustic, illiterate lady who was completely unaware of the legal nuances and timelines governing her service book.

The High Court rejected this line of reasoning based on settled labor and administrative jurisprudence:

  • Prohibition on Belated Claims: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that it is a foundational principle of service law that an employee cannot approach their employer or a court of law to alter their date of birth at the very end of their career.
  • Calculated Timing: The petitioner filed her internal representation at the age of 57 years and 11 months—a mere month prior to her scheduled retirement. Furthermore, she only approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution after her actual retirement had already taken effect.
  • Illiteracy No Excuse: The Court clarified that a personal background or a lack of formal education cannot be used as a legal tool to bypass strict statutory limits, particularly when the modification is requested on the verge of superannuation to prolong employment artificially.

4. Final Conclusion and Order

The High Court found no legal infirmity, procedural error, or arbitrariness in the department’s refusal to rectify the service record. The petitioner had failed to discharge her initial statutory burden within a reasonable timeframe. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, and ordered all pending miscellaneous applications to be disposed of accordingly.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 265

Raj Kumari V. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education And Others (D.O.J. 08.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Next Story

Quashing of Complaint: Vicarious Liabilty under Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashed

June 2, 2026 No Comments

The petitioners—a pharmaceutical manufacturing firm and its individual partners—moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of a criminal complaint initiated against them under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, along with the subsequent order of cognizance passed directly by the Court of Session. The prosecution arose after a batch of tablets manufactured by the firm was declared to be “not of standard quality” by a government analyst.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the complaint and the summoning order against the petitioners. The Court held that vicarious criminal liability under Section 34 of the Act requires specific factual averments in the complaint showing each partner’s direct involvement in day-to-day operations, which was entirely lacking since the firm had formally designated technical staff for manufacturing. Furthermore, the prosecution was held to be fundamentally without jurisdiction because executive power under Chapter IV exclusively vests in State-appointed Drugs Inspectors, to the exclusion of Central Inspectors. Lastly, the testing delayed past the mandatory 60-day threshold under Rule 45 further invalidated the proceedings.

1. Facts of the Case and Procedural History

  • Sample Drawing: On August 28, 2019, a Central Drugs Inspector drew samples of “Medrofex-180” tablets manufactured by M/s Salus Pharmaceuticals (Petitioner No. 1) from a military hospital store in Jalandhar.
  • Adverse Testing: The sample was received by the Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory (RDTL), Chandigarh, on September 2, 2019, and the Government Analyst subsequently declared the drug “not of standard quality” in a report issued on December 5, 2019.
  • Prosecution and Stay: Following a tracking chain through various intermediate distributors and securing prosecution permission from the Drugs Controller General of India, a formal complaint was filed directly before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on March 3, 2022. The Sessions Court took cognizance and issued summonses on March 7, 2022, which the petitioners challenged, securing an interim stay from the High Court in September 2023.

2. Legal Threshold for Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Reviewing established legal benchmarks from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), the High Court reiterated that its inherent powers must be exercised sparingly and with deep caution. However, threshold intervention is entirely warranted to prevent a clear abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. Specifically, when a complaint contains vague, generalized allegations, or when an express legal bar completely obstructs the continuance of a flawed prosecution, the High Court is duty-bound to quash it to save citizens from a futile, protracted trial.

3. Strict Interpretation of Vicarious Liability (Section 34)

The criminal complaint was targeted collectively against the manufacturing firm (Accused No. 1) and its individual partners (Accused Nos. 2 to 5). The partners contended they had no personal connection to daily operations.

The High Court accepted their defense under a strict construction of penal statutes:

  • Twin Requisites of Responsibility: Under Section 34 of the Act (analogous to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act), a partner or director cannot be held vicariously liable merely by virtue of holding a corporate designation or status. The prosecution must show they were directly in charge of, and responsible to, the firm for the daily conduct of business.
  • Defective Averments: The Court observed that the complaint merely repeated bald, cursory statutory catchphrases without detailing any specific factual roles for individual partners.
  • Technical Staff Shield: Crucially, the firm had formally submitted Form No. 26 to the competent authority, appointing a dedicated Plant Manager and a separate, qualified technical team responsible for manufacturing and testing. Because daily manufacturing was executed under expert supervision, and the individual partners were completely isolated from everyday factory processes, vicarious liability could not legally attach to them.

4. Jurisdiction of Central vs. State Drugs Inspectors

The petitioners raised a fundamental constitutional objection regarding the administrative division of executive powers under the Act.

The High Court accepted this jurisdictional challenge, setting down the following boundaries:

  • The Chapter-Based Separation: Under the statutory scheme of the 1940 Act, executive powers are explicitly divided. The Central Government retains jurisdiction under Chapter III, which covers the import of drugs and cosmetics. Conversely, the executive functions under Chapter IV—which govern domestic manufacture, sale, and distribution—exclusively reside with the State Government.
  • Constitutional Mandate: In line with Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution of India, matters falling under the Concurrent List require express parliamentary authorization for the Union to exercise executive power within a State. Chapter IV contains no such blanket enabling provision for Central inspectors. Consequently, an investigation conducted and a complaint filed by a Central Drugs Inspector for manufacturing defects under Chapter IV is wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

5. Separation of Trial Forums and Rule 45 Violation

  • Direct Court of Session Maintenance Upheld: The petitioners argued the complaint was procedurally defective because it bypassed a Magistrate’s committal under Section 193 Cr.P.C.. The High Court rejected this specific argument, clarifying that Section 32(2) of the special statute expressly mandates that no court inferior to a Court of Session shall try Chapter IV offences. Therefore, directly instituting a complaint before a Special Sessions Court is procedurally correct and overrides general code restrictions.
  • Mandatory 60-Day Testing Violation: However, the Court highlighted a fatal defect under Rule 45 of the Drugs Rules, 1945. The rule strictly commands the Government Analyst to test and analyze samples within 60 days of receipt, or formally secure a timed extension from the government. In this case, the sample was received on September 2, 2019, but the adverse report was not issued until December 5, 2019 (spanning nearly three months) without any recorded explanation. This delay compromised the right of the accused to seek a timely re-analysis before the product’s shelf-life expired.

6. Final Order

Concluding that the prosecution’s case was bound to fail on multiple structural, procedural, and jurisdictional parameters, the High Court allowed the petition. It quashed and set aside Complaint Case No. 3/2022 along with the order of cognizance dated March 7, 2022, officially discharging all the petitioners.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 264

M/S Salus Pharmaceuticals And Others V. Union of India (D.O.J. 07.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Quashing of FIR: Vague and omnibus allegations – Quashed

June 2, 2026 No Comments

The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered against him and 15 others during a political youth rally near the State Legislative Assembly. The police alleged that a crowd of 700 to 800 workers blocked traffic, breached barricades, and pelted stones at the police force. The petitioner was charged under Sections 341, 143, 188, 147, 148, 149, 353, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court ruled that the FIR contained only vague, omnibus allegations without assigning any specific overt role or weapon to the petitioner, making his actual presence on the spot highly doubtful. Furthermore, the Court held that the inclusion of Section 188 IPC was hit by a strict statutory bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. due to the lack of a formal written complaint by the public servant concerned. Because the other distinct cognizable offences were an inseverable part of the exact same transaction, the entire prosecution block was contaminated and legally unsustainable.

1. Factual Matrix and Allegations

  • The Incident: On August 24, 2018, members of the Himachal Pradesh State Youth Congress organized a political demonstration near Chaura Maidan during an active session of the state assembly.
  • The Police Account: According to the FIR lodged by the police, a rally comprising 700 to 800 workers carrying banners and dandas moved toward the Vidhan Sabha complex. The crowd allegedly pushed through police barricades, blocked traffic flow for up to 30 minutes, and threw stones, causing injuries to several police personnel.
  • The Criminal Charges: The police registered an FIR naming 16 leaders and workers, including the petitioner, under various provisions of the IPC relating to wrongful restraint (Section 341), unlawful assembly and rioting (Sections 143, 147, 148, 149), disobedience to public orders (Section 188), and assault on public servants (Sections 332, 353).

2. Failure to Substantiate Unlawful Assembly and Overt Acts

The petitioner argued that his name was included purely based on hearsay and that he was not even present at the demonstration site. The High Court meticulously reviewed the contents of the FIR and agreed with the petitioner:

  • Vague and Omnibus Material: The Court observed that despite a crowd of hundreds, the police selectively named only 15 individuals alongside the petitioner without providing a rational basis for doing so.
  • Absence of Individual Overt Roles: The FIR lacked any specific description of what the petitioner himself did. There was no mention of him carrying a weapon, throwing a stone, or directly striking any injured officer.
  • Democratic vs. Criminal Acts: Justice Sandeep Sharma highlighted that simply participating in a peaceful political demonstration or raising slogans does not automatically create criminal liability. To apply vicarious liability for group rioting under Sections 143 and 147 IPC, the state must present clear, distinct proof linking the specific individual to a shared common object of committing an illegal act. Since no independent witnesses were associated and no video recordings were produced to verify his identity, his presence remained legally unverified.

3. The Statutory Bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.

The High Court focused extensively on a fatal procedural defect concerning the charge under Section 188 IPC (disobedience to a lawfully promulgated order of a public servant):

  • Mandatory Written Complaint: Under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C., no court can legally take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC unless there is a formal complaint made in writing by the specific public servant who issued the order, or by an administrative superior.
  • The Purpose of the Shield: Referencing the Supreme Court precedent in Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010), the Court explained that this rule is a carved-out exception to the general principle that anyone can set the criminal law in motion. Its purpose is to protect citizens from being targeted by frivolous or malicious police prosecutions initiated on insufficient grounds.
  • Fatal Flaw: Because this case was built entirely on a standard FIR initiated directly by a police official rather than a written statutory complaint from the administrative authority that promulgated the restrictive orders, the invocation of Section 188 IPC was structurally void.

4. Pervasive Effect of the Procedural Bar on Interconnected Charges

The state prosecution contended that even if the Section 188 IPC charge was procedurally defective, the other distinct cognizable offences (such as Section 353 for assault and Section 341 for wrongful restraint) should be detached and sent to trial independently.

The High Court rejected this division, settling the legal boundaries under the single-transaction doctrine:

  • The Integrated Transaction Test: Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Suresh Chandra Shrivastava (1984), the Court held that while the Section 195 bar usually targets only the specific public-justice offences mentioned within it, an absolute exception arises when other non-specified offences form an inseverable, integral part of the exact same sequence of events.
  • Contamination of the Entire Prosecution: In this matter, the alleged rioting, traffic blockage, and resistance to public forces were completely intertwined with and triggered by the alleged defiance of the promulgated assembly restrictions. Because these actions were part of a single continuous transaction, the total failure to comply with the mandatory written complaint procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. contaminated the entire block of interconnected charges. Consequently, the entire prosecution was rendered bad in law.

5. Final Order

The High Court concluded that forcing the petitioner to face a protracted trial where the foundational elements of the offences were missing would be a clear abuse of the process of law. The Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside FIR No. 234 of 2018 along with the subsequent challan pending before the Judicial Magistrate, and officially acquitted the petitioner of all charges.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 263

Ajay Chauhan V. State of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. (D.O.J. 06.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Service Law: Society possesses deep and pervasive state control is State

June 2, 2026 No Comments

The petitioner, who continuously served the ZilaBachat Vikas Samiti, Bilaspur for over two decades (initially as a Part-Time Helper since 2005 and later as a Daily Waged Class-IV worker since January 2015), challenged the state’s refusal to regularize her services. The respondents contended that the Samiti was a registered society and not a core government department, rendering state regularization policies inapplicable.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, ruling that the society possesses deep and pervasive state control, thereby qualifying as an “Other Authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and functioning as an extended arm of the state. The Court held that a model employer cannot extract regular labor under temporary labels indefinitely. It directed the respondents to confer regularization upon the petitioner with effect from the policy date of April 22, 2020, with notional financial benefits up to the date of judgment and actual regular benefits, including seniority, thereafter.

1. Factual Matrix and Contentions

  • Service Timeline: The petitioner was initially engaged as a Part-Time Helper on November 22, 2005, and her services were later converted to a daily wage Class-IV status on January 9, 2015, within the ZilaBachat Vikas Samiti, Bilaspur. She continuously served the institution for over 20 years.
  • The State’s Objection: The State argued that because the petitioner was engaged by a registered society (the Samiti) rather than a core government department, she could not claim the benefit of the regularization policies circulated by the State Government for daily wage workers.
  • The Petitioner’s Counter: The petitioner asserted that the society was entirely owned and structurally directed by the state, pointing to financial guidelines issued by the Principal Secretary (Finance) which strictly mandated that such departmental societies could not hire or recruit temporary or daily wage staff without express government approval.

2. Status of the Society under Article 12 of the Constitution

The High Court rejected the state’s defense by meticulously analyzing the origin and structural machinery of the ZilaBachat Vikas Samiti:

  • Governmental Genesis: The society did not emerge independently; it was born directly out of a 1991 directive issued by the Director of Small Savings, Himachal Pradesh, instructing District Magistrates to constitute these bodies.
  • Ex-Officio Control: The entire membership of the society consists of ex-officio government officials, and it is chaired directly by the Deputy Commissioner of the District.
  • Public Function Test: The core objectives of the society—such as executing social development work, promoting local employment, and developing weaker sections of society—align perfectly with the socialist and welfare goals of the state.
  • Ruling: Consequently, the Court held that the society is an “Other Authority” under Article 12. It functions as an extended limb of the Small Savings Department, meaning its daily wage staff cannot be discriminated against based on the institutional nomenclature of their employer.

3. Obligations of a Model Employer and Perennial Nature of Work

Reviewing the latest Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), Dharam Singh v. State of H.P. (2025), and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), the High Court emphasized the constitutional standard required of state instrumentalities:

  • Eradication of Permanent Ad-Hocism: The fact that the petitioner performed her duties uninterruptedly for over two decades structurally establishes that the nature of her work was regular, permanent, and recurring. The state cannot exploit labor by using nominal labels like “temporary” or “daily wager” in perpetuity to balance budgets or evade statutory employment benefits.
  • Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: When daily wagers are legally engaged and granted consistent extensions over decades, a valid constitutional expectation arises that their service will be formally recognized. They cannot be abruptly treated as surplus after dedicating their prime working years.
  • Duty to Create Posts: Under the equality mandates of Articles 14 and 16, if a regular post is missing, the state is obligated to create a regular post to house an eligible worker who has fulfilled the conditions of the governing framework.

4. Application of the Regularization Policy and Relief

  • Policy Criteria: The State Regularization Policy dated April 22, 2020, mandated that daily wage/contingent paid workers who completed five years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) as of March 31, 2020, were eligible for regularization.
  • Petitioner’s Eligibility: Calculating from her commencement date of January 9, 2015, the petitioner successfully completed her five years of daily wage service on January 9, 2020, safely satisfying the 240-day baseline.
  • Manner of Benefits: The Court directed that regularization must be granted with effect from April 22, 2020 (the date the policy was officially circulated). The financial relief for the back-period (from April 22, 2020, to the date of the judgment) shall be structured as notional. However, regular actual financial benefits must be released post-judgment, and her seniority must be fully preserved and counted from the original 2020 policy date.

5. Final Order

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the restrictive communications issued by the respondents, and directed them to execute the regularization, ordering the creation of a regular post if explicitly required to fulfill the mandate.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 262

Manju Devi V. State of Himachal Pradesh And Others (D.O.J. 06.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share

Recent Articles