IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7779 of 2025 Decided on 02nd July, 2026 Hoshiar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Uday Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. V.S. Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- a) “That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the recovered amount of Rs.1,36,792/- to the petitioner alongwith to date interest within time bound period as the same has illegally been deducted from the applicant.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the respondents, in terms whereof, an amount of Rs.1,36,792/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner from his DCRG after the retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for 2 the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the service of the respondent-Corporation on 30.06.2023. He retired as Inspector, which is a Class-III post. He submits that after the retirement of the petitioner, the Corporation has released the retiral benefits to the petitioner on 10.09.2024, but, an amount of Rs.1,36,792/- has been deducted, which is evident from Annexure P-1, which is information obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act. He submits that in the light of the fact that the petitioner had superannuated when the recovery was effected from the retiral dues of the petitioner, no recovery could have been effected from him, in the light of the laws declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation by referring to the reply filed by the Corporation submitted that after the retirement of the petitioner, the earned leave account of the petitioner was pre-audited by the Senior Auditor and Section Officer (SAS) posted in Hamirpur unit in order to pay the leave encashment credit in the 3 earned leave account of the petitioner and during the pre-audit, it was revealed that the earned leave account of the petitioner was not correct and the same required re-casting. Learned counsel further submitted that in the process of re-casting as it was discovered that excess earned leave stood paid to the petitioner to tune of Rs.1,36,792/-, the recovery thereof was effective from the retiral dues of the DCRG. Learned counsel thus stated that as the amount, which was paid to the petitioner was not otherwise payable to him, therefore, there is no infirmity in the act of the respondent-Corporation of effecting the recovery. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents on record, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of this case the recovery of an amount of 1,36,792/- from retiral dues of the petitioner was not permissible in law. 5. The petitioner admittedly superannuated from the service of respondent-Corporation on 30.06.2023 as Inspector which is a Class-III post. 4 6. In terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334, in certain situations, no recovery can be effected from the employee and this includes recoveries from Class-III and Class-IV employees as well as retired employees. 7. In the present case, the petitioner not only happened to be a Class-III employee, but, he also stood retired as such on the day, when the recovery was effected. Further, a perusal of the reply filed by the Corporation demonstrates that the alleged overpayments made to the petitioner, if any, were not on account of any acts of omission and commission of the petitioner and oversight, if any, which resulted in the said overpayment was attributable to the Corporation. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, no recovery could have been effected from the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (supra). 5 8. Therefore, as there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that the recoveries have been illegally effected, this petition is allowed by holding that recovery of an amount of Rs.1,36,792/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is bad in law. Respondents are directed to refund the said amount forthwith to the petitioner. In case, the amount is refunded within a period of three months from today, then, it will not entail any interest. If it is not refunded within a period of three months from today, then, it will entail simple interest @6% from the date of this judgment. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 02, 2026 (Vinod)