IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21016 of 2025 Decided on: 02.01.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tej Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. H.S.Rangra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. H.S.Rangra and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply is not required to be called for from the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I. That recovery order as Annexed as Annexure P-1 may kindly be set aside being ultra virus, illegal and arbitrary to the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court and respondents may kindly be directed to release the whole amount of recovery i.e. 163,314/- deducted from DCRG along with the interest of 9% from 1-10-2023 to till its realization as per the latest law of Apex Court held in State of Punjab Vrs Rafiq Mohd and followed by this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No 3145/ 2019, in the interest of justice. II. The respondents are directed to release /make the payment of GIS & Gratuity amount of service period rendered as daily wages worker/helper along with interest.” 3. As per the case set up, petitioner was engaged as daily wage Safai Karamchari in respondent No.3- Corporation; His services were regularized on 30.09.1989 and converted as Mali in 1992; In 2014, petitioner’s pay was revised on completion of twenty years of service on the basis of revised pay scale/6th Pay commission. He was accordingly, granted new pay scale; Petitioner retired on 30.09.2023. Grievance of the petitioner is to the office order issued on 17.11.2023, ordering recovery of an amount of 3 Rs.1,63,314/- after re-fixing his pay under office order of even date i.e. 17.11.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the relief claimed for by him have already been adjudicated in S.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. and Other2. In S.S.Chaudhary2 following parameters were laid down in relation to permissibility /impermissibility of recovery by the employer:- “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 ClassI/Group-A and Class-II/Group-B, but 2 CWPOA No.3145 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 channelised 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.” The law in this regard has also been summed up by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors3, and Madhya Pradesh Medical Officers Association Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of above legal position, petitioner has already represented to the respondents on 20.06.2024 (Annexure P- 3), but till date the same not elicited any response from the respondents. 5. Prima facie, case of the petitioner appears to be covered under S.S.Chaudhary2 as the petitioner retired as Class-IV employee and the recovery has been allegedly effected from him after his retirement. However, this is a fact, which is to be verified by the respondents. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider 3 2022 AIR (SC) 2153 4 Civil Appeal No. 5527 of 2022 decided on 26.08.2022. 5 aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law summed up in S.S.Chaudhary2. The decision be taken within six weeks. In case of favourable decision, the amount held to be refunded to the petitioner, be refunded within two weeks thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 2, 2026 Judge R.Atal