Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup [April 17 - April 23, 2023]

Nominal Index:

Graviss Foods Private Limited vs. M/s Ice Cream Garden & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 26

Santosh Nanta Vs State of H.P. & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 27

Ramesh Chand Verma Vs H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 28

Dr Umesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 29

Kiran Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 30

Judgements/Orders:

Appeal Against Dismissal Of S. 8 Application Filed Before Commencement Of 2015 Arbitration Amendment Act, Not Maintainable: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Graviss Foods Private Limited vs. M/s Ice Cream Garden & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 26

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that the amendment incorporated in Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, which provides for an appeal against an order of the court refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8, is prospective in nature. Thus, the same will apply to court proceedings which have commenced on or after the Amendment Act came into force, i.e., 23.10.2015.

Exercising Power Of Judicial Review To Enter Merits Of Selection Process Tantamount To Treading On Thin Sheet Of Ice: HP High Court

Case Title: Santosh Nanta Vs State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 27

The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that exercising the power of judicial review to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, tantamount to treading on a thin sheet of Ice.

The Bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed that

“It would be indeed, treading on thin ice, if the Courts were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form part of a selection board. It is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene."

Two Categories Of Posts Do Not Necessarily Enjoy Same Pay Scales Merely Because Their Further Channel Of Promotion Is Same: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Chand Verma Vs H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 28

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that just because two positions share a common path for advancement doesn't mean they should have the same pay scale and factors such as separate governing Rules, varying modes of recruitment, distinct qualifications, and unique job profiles should be considered.

Each position deserves compensation based on its own merits, rather than simply based on the common promotion path, it clarified.

Pension | Qualifying Service Of Regular Employee Starts From Day They Take Charge Of First Post, Whether Temporary Or Substantive: HP High Court

Case Title: Dr Umesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 29

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a regular government employee's qualifying service starts from the day (s)he takes charge of their first post, whether it's temporary, officiating or substantive, in terms of the Rule 13 of the Civil Service and Pension Rules 1972.

Bail Can't Be Denied Solely On Seriousness Of Accusations, Specific Allegations Against Accused & Evidence Must Be Considered: HP High Court

Case Title: Kiran Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 30

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that the court cannot deny bail based solely on the seriousness of the accusations and potential punishment and other factors, such as the allegations against the accused and available evidence, must be considered and balanced while deciding the application for bail.