IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 41 of 2024 Decided on: 13.05.2026 Shri Jhabe Ram (since deceased) through his legal representatives, namely, Smt. Sharda Thakur and others …. Petitioners. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and another …..Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Shilpa Sood, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 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 certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, quashing the action of the respondents and the impugned communication 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. dated 18.10.2023 to the extent of Clause 11, 12 and 13 (Annexure P-2), Communication dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure P-4), Communication dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) and Communications dated 06.12.2023, 13.12.2023 and 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-7 Colly.), whereby recovery has been sought to be effected from the petitioner and has further been effected from the Demand Draft Deposited by the petitioner and has been further called upon to deposit the excess amount of Rs.3,16,021/- (Including Interest) being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional and against the settled law of service jurisprudence. B. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to refund the amount so recovered and adjusted against the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner and they be further directed to process the case of the petitioner for pension on the higher wages as he had already deposited the total dues with interest to be deposited in the pension fund vide demand draft dated 27.10.2023 or in alternate the respondents be directed not to insist on the interest on the alleged principal amount of recovery, i.e., Rs.5,11,495/- and be directed to release the pension of higher wages 3. after adjusting the said principal amount of Rs.5,11,495/-.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor-in- interest/original petitioner, namely, Shri Jhabe Ram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the original petitioner’) joined as a Driver on regular basis in the respondent-Corporation on 15.05.1991 and he superannuated on 31.01.2018, after putting in 27 years of service. Initially, the original petitioner contributed towards Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Pension Funds on his actual salary, but after amendment was introduced in the month of September, 2014, the pension contribution was restricted to the statutory wage ceiling of Rs.15,000/- per month, which led to a widespread litigation across the country. The issue was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by holding that eligible employees were entitled to exercise a joint option for pension on higher wages, subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. It is further the case of the original petitioner that after his retirement, in order to avail the benefit of pension on higher wages, he deposited a sum of Rs.4,33,755/- with the respondent-Authorities, as per the requirement of the applicable Scheme. Thereafter, the original petitioner was sanctioned pension on higher wages to the tune of 4. R.14,852/- per month. This was paid to him from the month of January, 2018 to July, 2018. However, thereafter, the pension of the original petitioner was arbitrarily reduced to Rs.2953/- per month. Not only this, the respondents also proceeded to effect recovery of Rs.77,740/- from the original petitioner on the alleged ground that excess pension stood paid to him. According to the original petitioner, after effecting the aforesaid recoveries, the balance amount which was to be credited in his Provident Fund Account was Rs.3,56,015/-, but, the respondent-Organization credited an amount of Rs.8,67,510/- in his EPF account. On this ground, the respondent-Organization later on contended that an excess amount of Rs.5,11,495/- (i.e., Rs.8,67,510/- -Rs.3,56,015/-) stood paid to the original petitioner. According to the original petitioner, as this excess credit was deposited on account of the respondents own calculations and administrative processing and not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played by him, the demand of interest on the said excess payment released to him by the EPF was not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the excess amount deposited in the EPF account of the original petitioner was not on account of any act of omission or 5. commission of the original petitioner, therefore, he was not liable to pay any interest thereupon, as was being demanded by the respondent-Authorities. He submitted that the excess amount was deposited by the respondents as a result of their own calculations. He further submitted that the original petitioner had requested that at the most, the excess principal amount of Rs.5,11,495/- could be adjusted from the pension arrears of the original petitioner and no interest could be charged from him, but, the respondents proceeded to recover the entire amount, including interest component. He submitted that this act of the respondents was totally illegal, arbitrary and unjust; and, therefore, the petition be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently argued that as excess amount stood paid to the original petitioner, to which he was not entitled to and he had enjoyed the same, therefore, there was no illegality in the act of the Authorities of recovering the excess amount paid to the original petitioner, including the interest payable thereupon. He submitted that the excess amount was deposited on account of an internal calculation error, but still fact of the matter was that the original petitioner was not entitled to the 6. said additional amount and as he withdrew the said amount, therefore, he was liable to pay the interest thereupon. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents on record. 6. The facts which are not much in dispute are that there indeed was a miscalculation made at the end of respondent No. 2, which resulted in initially deposit of an excess amount in the EPF account of the original petitioner and thereafter release of said amount in his favour. It is also a matter of record that in all, an amount of Rs.7,69,372/- was adjusted against the arrears of pension of the original petitioner, i.e., Rs.5,11,495/-, which was excess amount deposited to him as well as Rs.2,57,877/- calculated as interest up to 31.01.2024, upon the principal amount. In addition, in terms of the reply filed by respondent No. 2, balance of Rs.5323/- was also recovered from the original petitioner. 7. An amount of Rs.5,11,495/- was deposited in the account of the original petitioner erroneously by respondent No. 2, to which he was not entitled to, this Court finds no illegality in the act of the said respondent in recovering the same from the original petitioner. 7. 8. In the backdrop of what has been narrated hereinabove, when this case was listed on 07.04.2026, the following order was passed:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case out of the total amount of Rs.2,72,798/- which the petitioner is claiming, the petitioner is refunded an amount of Rs.2,12,878/- and the balance of Rs.59,920/-, which as per the respondents accrued as interest when the amount stood deposited into the P.F. Account of the petitioner, is allowed to be retained by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the parties to have definite instructions with regard to the observation made by the Court. As prayed for, list on 27.04.2026.” 9. It is pertinent to observe at this stage that in the said order, the interest amount is reflected as Rs.2,72,798/-, whereas, the same actually was Rs.2,57,877/-. 10. Whereas learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners shall be satisfied in case the petition is disposed of in terms of the observation made by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2026, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that the case be decided on merit. 8. 11. As it is not in dispute that out of the total amount, which is being demanded by respondent No. 2 as interest, at the time when the amount was deposited in the account of the original petitioner, on account of the miscalculations on the part of respondent No. 2, Rs.59,920/- accrued as interest thereupon, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No. 2, at the most, is entitled for the said amount of interest. The balance of the amount which is being claimed by respondent No. 2 from the original petitioner on the pretext that the said amount which was erroneously deposited in his account was used by him, after withdrawing the same, does not convince the Court. 12. As observed in the above part of the order also, because the deposition of the access amount in the EPF account of the original petitioner was not on account of any act of omission or commission of the original petitioner and he withdrew the amount which was in his account bonafidely and subsequently the same has been recovered by respondent No. 2, interest cannot be claimed from the petitioners on the same. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice in case the petitioner is refunded an amount of Rs.2,12,878/- by respondent No. 2, which has been deducted 9. by the said respondent and the balance amount of Rs.59,920/- is retained by respondent No. 2. Ordered accordingly. 13. It is clarified that this order is being passed in the peculiar facts of this case, more so, in light of the fact that the original petitioner is no more and it is his legal heirs, including his widow, who would have to face the brunt of interest. It is further ordered that this order shall not be treated as a precedent. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 13, 2026 (bhupender)