2025:HHC:610 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6473 of 2024 Decided on: 04.01.2025 Joginder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr.Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. That the accompanying reply to CWP has been drafted at my instance and instructions before signing it I have carefully gone through the contents of the same. 2. That the contents of reply as contained in paras No.1 to 3 (a to s) of preliminary submissions and paras 1 to 8 of reply on merits of accompanying reply are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and as per information derived from the official record. No part of it wrong and nothing material has been concealed therein.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of Annexure P-1, recovery of Rs.1,00,059/- has been worked out from the petitioner on account of alleged excess pay paid to him by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither any excess pay was paid to the petitioner and even if there was any excess payment made, it was not on account of any act of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:610 the petitioner and as the petitioner is not responsible for the same, therefore, no recovery can be made. Learned counsel further submitted that as the petitioner is a Class-III Employee, therefore also, in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) And Others, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334, the recovery is bad in law. 3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the petitioner was conferred the work charge status as a mason w.e.f. 01.01.2001 by the order passed Superintending Engineer concerned on 12.03.2007. In terms of a Scheme formulated by the State, all Skilled and Semi-Skilled Categories were re-designated as Junior Technicians, which included the Category of the petitioner. After his re-designation as a Junior Technician, three tier pay structure was granted to the Category concerned and the petitioner enjoyed the benefit of 4-9-14 years Old ACP Scheme, to which he was not entitled to and therefore, it is in this light that the excess amount has been ordered to be recovered as the same is recoverable. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no infirmity in the order of recovery, the petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving as a Class-III employee. It is also not in dispute that the alleged over 3 2025:HHC:610 payments made to the petitioner are not on account of any act of the petitioner. 6. That being the case, as it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and Others Versus Rafiq Masih (supra) that in certain circumstances, no recovery is permissible, which includes recovery from a Class-III employee, the recovery in terms of impugned Annexure P-1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law because as the petitioner is a Class-III employee, the respondents are restrained from effecting any recovery from him, de hors the fact as to what lead to the excess payment of salary etc. 7. In light of above discussion, this petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed not to effect any recovery on the basis thereof. It is further ordered that if any recovery has already been effected on the basis of Annexure P-1, then the recovered amount be refunded to the petitioner within a period of there months from today, failing which it shall entail interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment till the date of excess payment. 8. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 04, 2025 (Rishi)