HP High Court takes strong stance; imposes additional fine of ₹25,000 on Govt, Find out why

April 25, 2026

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken a stern stance regarding the acquisition of employees at Saraswati Sanskrit College, Dangar, in the Bilaspur district. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed in strong terms that this marks the third round of litigation, an entirely unnecessary process. It is the government’s duty to adhere to its own rules and notifications, rather than compelling its employees to repeatedly make rounds of the courts.

The verdict explicitly states that the date of acquisition is the sole determining factor. Under Clause 7 of the notification dated August 25, 1994, June 17, 2021 (the date of takeover) is the only relevant date for determining eligibility.

A Single Bench had previously imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the government. Deeming the present appeal to be entirely misconceived, the Division Bench imposed an additional fine of ₹25,000 on the government.

The High Court clarified that the government is bound by its own policies and judicial pronouncements. The arbitrary interpretation of legal orders by government officials, coupled with the filing of repetitive appeals, constitutes a sheer waste of judicial time.

The State Government had taken control of the college on June 17, 2021. As per the rules, employees who had been in service at the institution for at least one year prior to the date of acquisition were to be absorbed into government service.

The Court remarked that this case serves as a prime example of the State Government dragging its feet and deliberately stalling a matter, despite the existence of clear legal precedents. The Court noted that a Division Bench had already delivered a verdict on this very issue on May 31, 2024, in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State.

Notwithstanding this, the government disregarded the orders and erroneously linked the employees’ eligibility to the date of inspection, whereas the applicable rules explicitly refer to the date of acquisition.