2025:HHC:4023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.93 of 2025 Decided on: 27.02.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Applicants/Appellants Versus Nima Sherpin ...Non-Applicant/Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the applicants/ Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, appellants Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] CMP[M] No.93 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 123 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal be registered. The application stands disposed of. LPA No.59 of 2025 2. Present Letters Patent Appeal is directed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:4023 - 2 - against the order of learned Single Judge, whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition No.3687 of 2021 decided on 03.05.2024 and quashed the recovery which was directed to be affected against Class-IV employee of Rs.2,11,079/-, vide impugned order dated 03.09.2020. Learned Single Judge kept in mind the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in State of Punjab & Others Versus Rafiq Masih [White Washer] and others, [2015] 4 SCC 334, by allowing the writ petition. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWPOA No.5078 of 2020, titled as Govind Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 27.07.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the financial benefits were given from 01.01.2002 to 13.06.2008, whereas it was to be given only on notional basis and in such circumstances, recovery has been effected. 4. A perusal of the Office Order dated 03.09.2020 [Annexure P-1] which was the subject matter of challenge in CWP No.3687 of 2021 would show that 2025:HHC:4023 - 3 - recovery was being affected on account of the fact that earlier work charge status had been granted to Class-IV employee with retrospective effect from 01.01.2002, vide letter dated 18.06.2020. A perusal of the said order dated 18.06.2020 [Annexure R-3] would go on to show that the directions had been issued in favour of the employee in view of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 27.10.2016, whereby on completion of 8 years daily waged service with 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 31.12.2001, she had been granted work charge status on notional basis from 01.01.2002. The financial benefits were only to accrue on actual basis from 14.06.2008 and employee stood already retired way back on 31.03.2012. 5. The stand of the State is that financial benefits were wrongly disbursed and therefore, the same could be withdrawn. It is not the case of appellants-State that the employee who is a widow and Nepali citizen has misrepresented in any manner. In case, the State itself has paid excess amount, which is against the order dated 18.06.2020. The recovery of Rs.2,11,079/- from a Class-IV employee who was drawing 2025:HHC:4023 - 4 - monthly pension of Rs.12,022/- is highly excessive. The principles laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih [supra] read 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 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.” 6. It is not the case that the employee had given any undertaking to the extent that if there is a 2025:HHC:4023 - 5 - mistake as such, she would be bound to refund the amount. Therefore, in view of the passing of order on 18.06.2020 and while actually disbursing the financial benefits wrongly, the employee as such, could not be put to loss after having received the amount on account of arrears keeping in view the status of the employee. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that recovery from a widow, who retired on 31.03.2012 at the belated stage, would not be justified in any circumstance. 7. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. - (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge February 27, 2025 [Bhardwaj/Chiranjeev]