IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2979 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Goverdhan Singh …….Petitioner Versus SJVN Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, who retired on 31.08.2024 as W-6 (equivalent to Senior Assistant), is that one Kamar Deen, who was admittedly appointed after him, has been granted W-7 level, as a result thereof, he is in receipt of more salary than the petitioner, who despite being senior to afore person has been retained at W-6 level. 2. While making this Court peruse communication dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-1), Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that though Senior Manager (CSR), having taken note of the anomaly highlighted by the petitioner, requested Additional 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 General Manager (Human Resource) Rampur HPS Bayal, to rectify the mistake, but since no action has been taken for several years, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs as reproduced hereinbelow:- “(i) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the benefits which has been provided to Kamar Deen may also be provided to the petitioner and the recovered money to the tune of about Rs. 3,30,000/- (Three lack and thirty thousand only) be also refunded to the petitioner with interest.” 3. Having perused reply filed by the respondents, this Court finds that there is no dispute that petitioner had been working at W-6 Level, as a result thereof, his basic pay was fixed at Rs.50,248/-, which subsequently came to be reduced to a sum of Rs.46,310/-, after granting annual increment. After his promotion to W-7 level, pay of the petitioner as on 01.07.2021 ought to have been Rs.49,140/-, but fact remains that he was in receipt of salary to the tune of Rs.46,310/-, whereas person namely Karam Deen, who was junior to the petitioner, was in receipt of salary to the tune of Rs.53,710/-. Though Senior Manager (CSR), having taken note of aforesaid anomaly, requested Additional General Manager (Human Resource) Rampur HPS Bayal, to rectify the mistake, but till date needful has 3 not been done. Similarly, no recovery, if any, could have been effected from the petitioner after his retirement, on account of alleged excess payment made beyond his entitlement. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 (2), wherein it has categorically been held that in case amount, sought to be recovered, was not received by the Government employee on account of misrepresentation or fraud, same cannot be recovered after his retirement. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Action of the respondents in recovering the amount allegedly made in excess to the petitioner is held to be bad in law and no recovery, if any, on account of excess payment, shall be recovered from the petitioner, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that amount, if any, paid in excess to the petitioner on account of misrepresentation or fraud, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). Besides above, respondents shall also take appropriate action in accordance with law on communication dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure P-1), copy whereof was also served upon Senior Manager (CSR) so that anomaly in absorption of the petitioner at W-6 Level vis- 4 à-vis one person namely Kamar Deen, who was junior to the petitioner but was placed at W-7 level, is removed. Needful, in terms of instant order, shall be done expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 12, 2025 (Sunil)