2025:HHC:22743 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Exe. Pet. No. 857 of 2025 Decided on: 15.07.2025 Amar Chand … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashir Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 3-MC. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Mukul Sood, learned Counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 & respondent No. 3, respectively. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for execution of order that has been passed by this Court on 06.11.2023, relevant portion of which reads as under:- “3. The case of the petitioner, as explained by learned counsel for petitioner is that he retired from service, as Superintendent Grade-II, on 31st July, 2023 and was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:22743 granted service benefits by the respondents. Now, on 19.10.2023, Annexure P-1, the respondents have issued an order of recovery of Rs.2,22,147/-, without issuing notice, without giving hearing and seeking an explanation from the petitioner, visiting the petitioner with civil consequences i.e. post his retirement illegally. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the operation of impugned recovery orders dated 19.10.2023, Annexure P-1, shall remain stayed till further orders, in view of the dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. CMP No.16051 of 2023 5. Disposed of with a direction to the applicant-petitioner to file translated copies of vernacular documents within four weeks.” 3. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has apprised the Court that whereas interim was passed by the Court on 06.11.2023, after the superannuation of the petitioner, the amount stood disbursed to him on 03.11.2023 which was reflected in his account on 06/07.11.2023. He has further submitted that no recoveries are being effected from the petitioner and even adjustment of amount of Rs.2,22,147/- will obviously abide by the final decision of the writ petition. 3 2025:HHC:22743 4. Taking into consideration the submissions so made by learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, these proceedings are closed but with the observation that as the petitioner has already challenged the act of the respondents of effecting recoveries from him, which is sub-judice, the amount which has yet not been paid to the petitioner, shall abide by final adjudication of the writ petition. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 15, 2025 (narender)