2025:HHC:13305 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.219 of 2025 Decided on:07.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellants Versus Hans Raj ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] CMP[M] No.91 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, delay of 144 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed. The appeal be registered. LPA No. 219 of 2025 Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal, is to the order passed by Learned Single Judge in 2025:HHC:13305 - 2 - CWP No.3443 of 2022 titled as Hans Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 09.05.2024, whereby learned Single Judge has set aside the recovery order of Rs.4,02,571/- of the writ petitioner who was a Mason. It is found by the learned Single Judge that the payments were being made from 27.08.2009 and it is only in the year 2022 after a lapse of 13 years, the recovery was sought to be done on account of the fact that benefit of Old Assured Career Progression Scheme which was wrongly conferred upon the employee to which he was not legally entitled, was being resorted as per defence of the State. 2. While placing reliance upon the judgment in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others. (2015) 4 SCC 334, the benefit has been granted. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: i) Recovery from employees belonging to 2025:HHC:13305 - 3 - 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.” 3. A perusal of the above would go on to show that if payments have been made for long and the person is not responsible and there is nothing to show that it was on his account the payment was made, the State would not be entitled for recovery. The employee, as such, was not contesting the fixation of his pay and it was only recovery order which was sought to be quashed, which has been allowed. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that recovery from a lowly paid [class- III employee], of a huge amount of Rs.4,02,571/- at the fag end of his career, since he was appointed as daily wager in 1991 would be extremely detrimental to him, as 2025:HHC:13305 - 4 - it is on account of mistake of the State itself that the wrong payments have been made. Therefore, the State is now stopped as such from recovering the amount at the belated stage. 4. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 7th May, 2025 [himani/shivender]