IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7150 of 2024 Decided on: 09.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Parmeshwar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against recovery of Rs.49,316/- effected from him by the respondents. Hence the writ petition. 2. Petitioner was serving as Work Inspector-Class-III post in the respondent Irrigation & Public Health Division Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. On completion of requisite period of service in the year 2012, respondents granted him benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme as per 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - applicable regulations and instructions. A Recovery of Rs. 49,316/- on account of alleged wrong fixation of petitioner’s pay and over payments to him during the years 2012-2016, was ordered. The recovery has since been effected from the petitioner in the year 2023. Petitioner, who superannuated on 30.11.2023, feels aggrieved against this recovery. 3. According to the respondents, petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme. He was given undue benefit w.e.f. the year 2012 to 2016, therefore, excess amount paid to him was liable to be recovered. It is for this reason, that petitioner had deposited the above excess amount with the respondents through a challan. The respondents had not deducted the amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors2 has held that recovery by the employer from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV services, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer in excess of their entitlement, would be impermissible. 2 (2015)4 SCC 334 - 3 - A Division Bench of this Court relying upon the aforesaid judgment and on consideration of several other precedents in the timeline including Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors3. has held as under in S.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. and Other4:- “35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:- (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. (vi) Recovery on the basis of undertaking from the employees essentially has to be confined to Class- I/Group-A and Class-II/Group-B, but 3 (2012)8 SCC 417 4 CWPOA No.145 of 2019 decided alongwith connected matters on 24.03.2022 - 4 - even then, the Court may be required to see whether the recovery would be iniquitous, harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far overweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. (vii) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class- III and Class-IV even on the basis of undertaking is impermissible. (viii) The aforesaid categories of cases are by way of illustration and it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized and inflexible gudielines or rigid formula and to give any exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases. Therefore, each of such cases would be required to be decided on its own merit.” In Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.5 Hon’ble Apex Court held that excess payment made to an employee cannot be recovered, if such payment was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. Also, excess payment to the employee due to any wrong application of the rule or incorrect calculation on the part of the employer is not recoverable.” 5. In view of above well settled principles, recovery of excess amount from the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 49,316/- , on account of alleged wrong fixation of the petitioner’s pay by the respondents, cannot be allowed. Petitioner has statedly deposited the amount, but the deposit 5 SLP(C) No(s) 5918/2024 decided on 04.04.2024 - 5 - was pursuant to the respondents’ communication dated 04.04.2023 in order to get his retiral dues on superannuation. Petitioner is a Class-III employee, recovery would otherwise be inequitable and harsh on him. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Annexure P-1 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. Respondents are directed to reimburse the amount in question to the petitioner within six weeks from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 5% per annum. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge September 9, 2025 R.Atal