2026:HHC:19886 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 7617 of 2025 Decided on : 26.05.2026 Ram Pal …Petitioner Versus The Executive Director (pers), H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) That Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice. b) That after the retirement of petitioner gratuity, leave encasement may kindly be released without any delay in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of impugned office order dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-3), recovery of an amount of Rs.5,96,105/- and Rs.25,623/- has 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:19886 been ordered from the petitioner ignoring the fact that no recovery could have been effected from him in light of the fact that the petitioner was serving as a Class-III employee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was serving with the respondent-Board as a Junior Engineer at the time when impugned office order dated 02.07.2024 was issued. She further informed the Court that during the pendency of the petitioner, the petitioner was superannuated on 31-8-2025. She submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334, has been, inter alia, pleased to hold that in certain situations recovery from an employee is not permissible in law and such situations include recovery from a Class-III and Class-IV employee as also from a retired employee. She submitted that as the petitioner happened to be a Class-III employee when the impugned of office order was passed, the same was against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. She further submitted that the recovery was allegedly on the grounds that certain over payments were 3 2026:HHC:19886 made to the petitioner, whereas, fact of the matter was that no over payments were made to the petitioner and assuming that certain over payments were made to the petitioner, then also the same was not as a result of any act of omission or commission by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Board referred to the reply filed by the Electricity Board and submitted that as certain over payments were made to the petitioner at the time of the fixation of the pay of the petitioner, as stands spelled out in detail in the reply, in order to recover the over payments, the order of recovery was passed. He submitted that as the petitioner was not entitled to the said payments, he cannot stall the recovery thereof and therefore, as there is no illegality in the act of the respondent-Board of effecting recoveries from the petitioner, the petition being devoid of any merit, be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 4 2026:HHC:19886 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was serving as a Class-III employee when Annexure P-3, dated 02.07.2024 was passed. It is also not in dispute that the recoveries were ordered on account of certain over payments made to the petitioner, which in terms of the reply filed by the Board, was a result of “inadvertent oversight and under a bona-fide mistake” on the part of the respondents. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), has been pleased to cull out certain circumstances in which recoveries from an employee are not permissible This includes recoveries from Class-III and Class-IV employees. In light of the fact that the petitioner was serving as a Class-III employee, recovery was not permissible from him and, therefore, obviously, as office order dated 02.07.2024 was passed by the Board in contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Further, it is evident from the reply filed by the Board itself that the over payments were made to the petitioner on account of inadvertent oversight and bona-fide mistake 5 2026:HHC:19886 committed by the Board This means that the petitioner was not responsible for the over payments made to him. Therefore also, for the acts of omission and commission of the Board, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 9. Accordingly, in light of above observations, as the petitioner is entitled for the relief, as prayed for, and as the impugned recovery order dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this petition is allowed. Annexure P-3 dated 02.07.2024 is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed not to effect any recoveries from the petitioner either on the basis of the said impugned order or otherwise. It goes without saying that as the petitioner was superannuated in the meanwhile, the retiral benefits which are accruable to the petitioner, if not already released, be released forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 26, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)