IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7690 of 2021 Decided on 23rd June, 2026 Sh. Ravinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate.. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- a) “That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to restore the increment, which has been withdrawn on the alleged ground of wrong pay fixation way back in the year 1987 and his basic pay has been arbitrarily and discriminately reduced to his detriment from Rs. 23,640/- to Rs 23080, despite the fact that recovery effected from the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner has been refunded to the Petitioner on the directions of the Learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. b) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to restore the increment, fix the basic pay of the Petitioner at Rs. 23,640/- instead of Rs 23,080/- w.e.f. 01.12.2016. 2 c) That the respondents be directed to release the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner after having revised the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs.23,640/- instead of Rs.23,080/- w.e.f. 01.12.2016.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that after his retirement from service, in terms of the impugned Annexure P-3, his pay was re-fixed and reduced and on the basis of the said reduction, an amount of Rs.1,26,670/- was deducted from his gratuity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner retired as a Chief Inspector, which is a Class-III post, the recovery effected after his retirement from his gratuity is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, he submitted that without going into any other issues, this petition can be disposed of by holding the act of recovery of said amount to be bad in law in terms of the law, declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that as the pay fixation of the petitioner was not done in a correct manner and his pay fixation required a revision, therefore, his pay was re-fixed at Rs.23,040/- instead of 23,640/- vide order dated 11.07.2017 and it was on this count that an amount of Rs.1,26,677/- was recovered from DCRG as the petitioner was not entitled for the said amount. She submitted that it is not as if the Corporation has deducted some amount which actually was payable to the petitioner. She submitted that as it was a case of overpayment, recovery thereof is justified in law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. Though, this Court is not interfering with the order of the Authority of revising the pay scale of the petitioner, but recovery of an amount on account of said revision, that too, after the retirement of the petitioner from his DCRG is not sustainable in law. 4 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334 has been pleased to hold that under certain circumstances no recoveries are permissible in law. These include recoveries from Class-III and Class-IV employees as also recoveries from retired employees. Herein, besides the fact that the petitioner stood retired when the recovery was effected, he incidentally happened to have superannuated as a Class-III employee. On account of both these eventualities, recoveries were impermissible as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra). Therefore, the recovery of an amount of Rs. Rs.1,26,677/- from the DCRG of the petitioner is indeed bad in law. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by observing that though this Court is not interfering with the act of the revision of the pay scale of the petitioner, but, recovery of an amount of Rs.1,26,677/- is held to be bad in law, being in conflict with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 5 India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others and the respondents are directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. If the amount is not refunded within three months, then, it shall also entail interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 23, 2026 (Vinod)