IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 350 of 2025 Decided on 06th November, 2025 State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Appellants Vs. Nirmal Kumar and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Govind Korla, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this appeal, the State has assailed the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, in terms whereof, the writ filed by the respondents was allowed in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, AIR 2015 SC 696, and the act of the appellants herein to effect recovery from the present respondents vide recovery notice dated 10.05.2023 was quashed and set aside. 2 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law because as excess payment was made to the petitioner, he was liable to refund back the same and, therefore, the notice of recovery which was issued to this effect by the Department was rightly issued. He submitted that as this extremely important aspect of the matter stands ignored by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the judgment is liable to the set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that as the recovery notice was issued to the petitioner after he had superannuated as a Class-III employee, the same was not sustainable in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others and as the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is strictly in consonance with the law laid down on the issue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment under challenge and this appeal being without any merit, be dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the judgment under challenge. 3 5. It is not in dispute that the recovery notice was issued to the petitioner after he had superannuated from service as a Class-III employee. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others certain situations stand carved out, in which, no recovery can be made from an employee. Two of the said situations as are mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment are recoveries from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV and recovery from the retired employees. In the present case, incidentally, not only was the respondent a Class-III employee, but he had also superannuated from the service when the recovery notice was issued. 6. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, recovery is not permissible from a Class-III employee,even if he is in service. Herein, as the petitioner besides being a Class-III employee had also superannuated, therefore, no recovery was permissible from him, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge demonstrates that this is exactly what was held therein. 4 8. Learned Single Judge after referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) also referred to a judgment of this Court in CWPOA No.3145 of 2019, titled S.S. Chaudhary versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 24.03.2022 and went on to allow the petition by quashing the recovery notice. 9. In our considered view, there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, as the same is based on the correct principle of law. As the recovery notice issued by the appellants was bad in law, learned Single Judge rightly quashed the same. 10. Therefore, in light above discussions, as we do not find any merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge November 06, 2025 (Vinod)