2025:HHC:14729-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.7213 of 2020 Decided on: 20.05.2025 Chandresh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Samriti Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the impugned recovery notice dated 14.05.2019 i.e. Annexure A-1 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to continue to pay the pay fixation by counting his adhoc period and no to refix the pay of the applicant. (iii) That the case of the applicant may kindly be consider strictly in view of the judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed in LPA No.36 of 2010 i.e. Annexure A-2.” 2 2. The petitioner has assailed the recovery notice dated 14.05.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby an amount of Rs.3,07,242/- has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The aforesaid amount has been sought to be recovered as excess amount paid to petitioner in lieu of Adhoc/Tenure/Stop Gap benefits granted to him. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a Class-III employee at the time when the alleged excess amount was paid to him. Taking the benefit of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Mashi (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order of recovery. 4. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & others vs. State of Uttrakhand and others, Civil Appeal No.5899 of 2012, decided on 17.08.2012. It is contended by the respondents that the recovery sought against the petitioner is lawful. 5. The facts reveal that the petitioner was Class-III employee when he was allegedly paid excess amount by the respondents. It has also emerged that the impugned recovery notice has been issued to the petitioner after more than 5 years of 3 the actual date of disbursement of alleged wrongful amount to him. That being so, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (surpa), which has further been followed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.03.2022 in S.S. Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No.3145 of 2019. The case of the petitioner is covered by the instances culled out in the aforesaid judgments where under the recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees has been made impermissible. 6. Accordingly, the impugned recovery notice dated 14.05.2019, Annexure A-1, is quashed and set aside. 7. Petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge May 20, 2025 (vt)