IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.12964 of 2025 Decided on: 19.11.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Joginder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikandar Buushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against recovery of Rs.77336/- effected from him by the respondents. Hence the writ petition. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. Petitioner was engaged in the respondent- Department as Beldar (Class-IV employee) on daily wage basis in the year 1980. Work charge status was conferred upon him on 22.06.1990. He was confirmed as Beldar in the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - year 1994. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. at the age of 60 years on 31.05.2019. During finalization of his pension case, office of the Accountant General, (A&E) Himachal Pradesh on 14.03.2019, pointed out recovery on account of wrong conferment of proficiency step up granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner’s pay was re-fixed on 22.03.2019 and amount of Rs.77332/- on account of wrong conferment of proficiency step up was ordered to be recovered from his due and admissible retiral benefits. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors2 has held that recovery by the employer from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV services, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer in excess of their entitlement, would be impermissible. A Division Bench of this Court relying upon the aforesaid judgment and on consideration of several other precedents in the timeline including Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors3. has 2 (2015)4 SCC 334 3 (2012)8 SCC 417 - 3 - held as under in S.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. and Other4:- “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 Class- I/Group-A and Class-II/Group-B, but 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 4 CWPOA No.145 of 2019 decided alongwith connected matters on 24.03.2022 - 4 - channelized 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.” In Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.5 Hon’ble Apex Court held that excess payment made to an employee cannot be recovered, if such payment was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. Also, excess payment to the employee due to any wrong application of the rule or incorrect calculation on the part of the employer is not recoverable.” 5. In view of above well settled principles, recovery from the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 77336/- , on account of alleged wrong fixation of the petitioner’s pay by the respondents, cannot be allowed. Respondents have fully recovered the amount from petitioner’s due and admissible retiral benefits. Petitioner was a Class-IV employee, recovery would otherwise be inequitable and harsh on him. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order at Annexure P-1 dated 22.12.2023, rejecting petitioner’s representation against recovery effected from him, is quashed and set aside. 5 SLP(C) No(s) 5918/2024 decided on 04.04.2024 - 5 - Respondents are directed to reimburse the amount in question to the petitioner within six weeks from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 5% per annum. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge November 19, 2025 R.Atal