IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1744 of 2019 Decided on: 06.07.2026 ____________________________________________________ Manohar Lal ……….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……….Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred seeking quashing of Annexure P-1 dated 19.07.2019 whereby recovery of the excess payment made from 1st August, 2012 to 31st March, 2019, amounting to Rs.71,028/-, is being sought to be made from the petitioner. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Peon- cum-Chowkidar (Class IV employee) at Government Senior Secondary School, Bathu Tippri, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner retired from the said post on 31.3.2019. Recovery in the case at hand is sought to be made vide letter dated 19.7.2019 (Annexure P-1). Recovery has been ordered after the petitioner has retired. From a perusal of the reply filed, it is 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 evident that the amount sought to be recovered had been paid to the petitioner on account of additional increments after 31.7.2012 till his retirement. 3. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings. 4. The payment so made had not been made either on account of any misrepresentation made by the petitioner nor fraud on the part of the petitioner. Besides the petitioner had no knowledge that the amount, that was being paid to him was more than what he was entitled to. In the aforesaid backdrop, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, whereby recovery from a Class IV employee, who has retired, more so where the excess payment had been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is made, has been held to be impermissible. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows:- 18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: 3 i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. (Also See Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerela and others 2022 SCC Online Sc 536). 5. In view thereof, the petition is allowed, and Annexure P-1 is quashed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 06th July, 2026 Tarun