2025:HHC:1837 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5541 of 2023 Decided on: 08.01.2025 Suresh Kumar … Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Though, rejoinder to the reply has not been filed, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the impugned act of the respondents is hit by the judgment of 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, there is no need to file any rejoinder. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner who is retired employee of the respondent-Corporation and who retired from the service of the respondent-Corporation as an Inspector (Class-III employee), is aggrieved by Annexure P-2, dated 14.01.2021, in terms whereof, the respondents have ordered recoveries from the petitioner on the ground of alleged over payments made to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no over payment as alleged was made to the petitioner and otherwise 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1837 also as the petitioner is a superannuated employee and further, as he superannuated as a Class-III employee, no recovery can be effected from him in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation has submitted that as payments stood made to the petitioner to which he was not entitled to, therefore, the Corporation is well within its right to recover the excess payment that has been made to the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned Office Order is not sustainable. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a retired employee and he superannuated as a Class-III employee. It is also not in dispute that the impugned Office Order was issued after the retirement of the petitioner, who retired on 30.06.2019. 7. Hon’ble Superme Court of India in State of Punjab and Others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) has been pleased to cull out certain circumstances in which no recovery can be effected from any incumbent and this includes a retired employee as well as Class-III and Class-IV employees. In the present case, the petitioner not only happens to be a retired employee, but he also happens to be a Class-III employee. 8. In the light of this fact, the recovery from the petitioner 3 2025:HHC:1837 is not permissible. This petition is, therefore, allowed. Office Order dated 14.01.2021 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set aside, having been issued by the respondents in violation of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and Others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) and it is further ordered that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner in the light of the said Office Order. In case, any recovery already stands effected, then the same be refunded back within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the same shall entail interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the judgment till actual payment. 9. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 08, 2025 (Rishi)