New Delhi/Shimla | July 14, 2026: A significant constitutional challenge concerning the regularisation of encroachments on Government land in Himachal Pradesh has reached the Supreme Court. The apex court has issued notice and directed the parties to maintain Status Quo over the disputed property while hearing the appeal against a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment […]
High Court sets aside rejection of parole to NDPS convict, reiterates that parole is a reformative measure and cannot be denied on vague assumptions without cogent material. Shimla: 11 April 2025 In a significant judgment reinforcing the reformative philosophy of criminal justice, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a mere apprehension that a
SHIMLA: July 30, 2025 In a significant judgment strengthening the rights of women employees, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held that a female Government servant cannot be denied maternity leave solely because she had two surviving children before entering Government service. The Court emphasized that maternity benefit provisions are beneficial in nature and
Background:The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the judgment dated 25 April 2026 passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No. 3361 of 2025 by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Issue:Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s judgment in favour of the employees/respondents. The Himachal Pradesh High
In a landmark judgment affecting thousands of government employees across Himachal Pradesh, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has declared unconstitutional the State legislation enacted to deny service benefits to contract employees and to nullify the effect of earlier judicial pronouncements recognizing their rights. The Division Bench was dealing with CWP No. 3361 of 2025 (Devinder
Shimla | June 29, 2026: The writ petition challenges the validity of the notification dated 6 September 2022, whereby Rule 7(A)(1) was inserted into the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022. According to the petitioner, the impugned provision violates the constitutional guarantee of equality by denying similarly placed employees equal pay benefits solely
