IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1687 of 2019 Decided on : 13.07.2026 Rita and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of HP and Others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Bhishm Lata, Advocate, vice Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (Oral) The petitioners in the case at hand were recommended to be appointed as a Female Health Workers in October, 2012 under Rogi Kalyan Samiti. Subsequent thereto, after rendering three years services, their services were taken over by the State on contractual basis in October, 2015. Thereafter, in terms of the policy framed by the State, services of the petitioners were regularized on 17.07.2017. On regularization, their salary was fixed at Rs.11,170/- (Rs.8370+2800 GP). 3. Admittedly the petitioners are Class-III employees. Their grievance is with respect to the recovery stated to be made 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- by the respondents. Recovery of approximately Rs.2,001/- is being affected from the salary of the petitioners, as is evident from Annexure P-2. 4. From a perusal of the reply, specifically para 4 on merits, it is the case of the respondents that from 17.07.2017 (date of regularization) till 31.07.2018, over payment to the tune of Rs.80,037/- has been made to each of the petitioners. In the reply, it has been categorically mentioned that recovery would be made in installments @ Rs.2,000/- per month. It is stated in the reply, specifically in para 9 of the preliminary submissions that the aforesaid excess payment has been made by the Block Medical Officer, Bagsaid, District Mandi, HP (respondent No.4) on account of misinterpretation of Notifications dated 24.09.2012 and 28.09.2012 (Annexures R-2 and R-3), respectively. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioners are Class- III Employees. Fairly, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that similar question of recovery from similarly situated Class-III Employees came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.4974 of 2020, titled Kishori Lal and State of HP and Ors., a/w connected matters, which were decided by a common judgment on 13.07.2023. The recoveries being -3- affected therein were quashed. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below:- “2. It is not in dispute that the recoveries as sought to be effected from the petitioners, pertaining to the period when they have worked as Class-III, which are obviously not permissible under law, in the light of a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334 (2), which judgment, in turn, has been considered by this Court in CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019, titled as “S.S. Chaudhary versus State of H.P. and others” alongwith connected matters, wherein this Court laid down the following principles: “35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra), it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:- (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. -4- (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 be far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. (vi) Recovery on the basis of undertaking from the employees essentially has to be confined to ClassI/Group-A and Class-II/Group-B, but even then, the Court may be required to see whether the recovery would be iniquitous, harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far overweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. (vii) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class-IV even on the basis of undertaking is impermissible. (viii) The aforesaid categories of cases are by way of illustration and it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give any exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases. Therefore, each of such cases would be required to be decided on its own merit.” -5- 3. Not only this, the issue in question is thereafter decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its two very recent judgments, titled as “Thomas Daniel versus State of Kerala”, Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010, decided on 02.05.2022 and “M.P. Medical Officers Association versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others”, Civil Appeal No. 5527 of 2022, decided on 26.08.2022.. 7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and recoveries sought to be effected from the petitioners are quashed and set aside. However, pay fixation be done in accordance with rules and as further detailed in Annexure P-1. The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 13th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)