IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10414 of 2023 Decided on 06th August, 2026 Shri Ramesh Chand …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Senior Advocate, with M/s Piyush Mehta and Neha Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of directions may kindly be issued, quashing the action of the respondents and the impugned communication dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-6), whereby the recovery has been sought to be affected from the Petitioner and an amount of Rs.6,17,220/- (Six Lakh Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Twenty) has been i) That the writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other 2 appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, discriminatory, and unconstitutional and against the settled law of service jurisprudence. ii) That the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to remove the discrepancy in the GPF Account {HP-09-42566} of the Petitioner and the Respondents be further directed to release the entire GPF amount of Rs.10,83,660/- (Ten lakh Eighty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Only) alongwith interest @ 12% P.A.” 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who was serving with the respondent- Department, retired as Superintendent Grade-I on 31.03.2021. His grievance is that after his retirement, an amount of Rs.6,17,220/- has been wrongly deducted from his GPF. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexures P-3 and P-6 and submitted that it is evident from a perusal of these two Annexures that the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the petitioner after his superannuation from his GPF account on the alleged pretext that somewhere in the year 2001, there was a withdrawal of Rs.60,000/- from his GPF account and on account of some clerical mistake in the maintenance of the 3 account, said amount was credited in his GPF account and discrepancy had crept in the General Provident Fund Account of the petitioner, which was subsequently discovered and the same led to the recovery of aforesaid amount from the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner had superannuated on 31.03.2021 and the recoveries have been effected thereafter, the same are hit by the law laid down 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. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that otherwise also, the reason being given by the Department of something which took place 20 years before the superannuation of the petitioner, to effect recovery of more than Rs.6 lakh is not sustainable in law. He submitted that even if it is to be assumed that some clerical mistake crept qua the maintenance of the GPF account of the petitioner, then also, said mistake cannot be attributed to the petitioner and he cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission and commission of the respondents. 4 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that as it is evident from the documents appended with the petition itself that on account of an error that has crept in the GPF account of the petitioner, an amount in excess of Rs.6 lakh was over-credited in the GPF account of the petitioner, to which he was not legally entitled to, the recoveries have been rightly effected. No other point was urged. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and also learned counsel for the Accountant General. 5. It is a matter of record that the petitioner superannuated from the service of the respondent-Department as Superintendent Grade-I on 31.03.2021. It is also clearly borne out from Annexures P-3 and P-6 that recovery of an amount of more than Rs.6 lakh from the GPF account of the petitioner was made on account of an alleged discrepancy which crept the GPF account of the petitioner in the year 2001- 2002. 5 6. I have carefully gone through the reply that has been filed to the petition by respondent No.3. A perusal thereof at least demonstrates one fact that as far as maintaining GPF statement of the petitioner is concerned, it was not per se the job of the petitioner. Discrepancy, if any, qua the upkeep of the GPF statement of the petitioner was on account of the omission and commission of someone other than the petitioner. 7. Besides this, in the light of the fact that the discrepancy in the GPF statement of the petitioner had accrued somewhere in 2001-2002, the onus was upon the Authorities concerned to have rectified the said discrepancy forthwith. 8. The same not having been done within some reasonable time and now the recovery of Rs.6,17,220/-made from the GPF account of the petitioner, that too after his superannuation, obviously is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others has been pleased to hold that in certain situations, no recovery from an employee is sustainable and this includes recovery from a retiree. 6 9. This Court again reiterates that as the recovery has been effected from the petitioner after his superannuation, therefore, the same is not justified in the eyes of law. 10. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of effecting the recovery of Rs.6,17,220/- from the GPF account of the petitioner is held to be bad in law. Respondents are directed to forthwith refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs.6,17,220/-. In case the amount is refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, the same shall not entail interest. If it is not refunded within the said period, it will entail interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition. 11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 06, 2026 (Vinod)