IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 17211 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ravinder Dutt …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(a) To issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature thereof, quashing the impugned orders dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner’s retiral benefits being unconstitutional and illegal; (b) To issue a further writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondents department to replay/refund the amount illegality recovered from the petitioner’s retiral benefits alongwith interest 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 thereon @ 18% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment.” 2. Though, vide order dated 06.11.2025, this Court had directed the respondents to file reply, but learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 15.11.2025, issued under the signatures of Director Health Service, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith certain documents suggestive of the fact that order of re-fixation of pay of the petitioner in the year 2022, thereby fixing the pay in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2410/- though has been upheld and respondents have been directed not to make any recovery from the petitioner on the basis of the same. It has been stated in the aforesaid communication that amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner, shall be paid back to him within a period of four weeks. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General, while referring to aforesaid communication, states that petitioner herein was aggrieved on account of recovery sought to be effected through order dated 03.02.2025. He submitted that though amount sought to be recovered was received in excess by the petitioner, but having taken note of law on the point, Director Health 3 Service, Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 10.10.2025 addressed to the Chief Medical Officer, Shimla though up-held order of re-fixation of pay of the petitioner in the year 2022, thereby fixing the pay in the pay scale of Rs. 1350- 2410/-, but directed the respondent-Department not to make any recovery from the petitioner on the basis of the same. He submits that since amount, if any, recovered has been agreed to be paid back to the petitioner, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. 4. Having perused aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to refund the amount, if any, recovered from him pursuant to order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-1). 5. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by the respondents as is reflected in communication dated 15.11.2025, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that amount, if any recovered in terms of order dated 03.02.2025 is refunded to the petitioner 4 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 17, 2025 (shankar)