1 2025:HHC:13900 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LP A No. 497 of 2024 Decided on: 13.05.2025 Madho Ram ......Appellant Versus State of H.P & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Varun Thakur and Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order of learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.12125 of 2024 on 26.11.2024 on the ground of delay and laches. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches in limine without calling for the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 reply. The learned Single Judge was of the considered opinion that the recovery was effected on 04.04.2019 and the writ petition was only filed on 24.09.2024 and therefore there was delay of 5 years. 3. A perusal of the Writ record would go on to show that the appellant superannuated on 30.11.2018 as a Mason and there were un-availed earned leave of 300 days in his account amounting to Rs.4,22,610/-. Vide impugned order dated 04.04.2019, the recovery was effected of Rs.2,28,510/- and a sum of Rs.1,94,100/- was directed to be paid to him. Apparently, it was not within his notice that on what account recovery was done, since it was being done on account of the objection raised from the Accountant General office. 4. Counsel for the State as such has referred to Annexure R-II to point out that his pay fixation was done on 10.12.2018 and there was a clause that fixation was subject to verification and any over payment was to be recovered from the retiree in lump-sum basis. It is also on record that the petitioner filed representations thereafter on 27th of June 2022 and 20th of November 2023 seeking information, under which 3 heading recovery had been made but the State had apparently not responded to the same and thus the writ petition as such has been filed which got dismissal at the initial stage. 5. Prima facie we are of the considered opinion that the recovery would not have been effected in view of the law laid down in State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334 in view of the fact that the same was being done after retirement and secondly, the petitioner being a Class III employee which aspect has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. 6. In such circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside the judgment and remand the matter for decision afresh after completion of pleadings on merits. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 4 8. List the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on 28.05.2025 as per roster. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice May 13, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge