2026:HHC:21688 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8373 of 2024 Decided on: 04.06.2026 Uploaded on: 05.06.2026 Nalini Mahajan … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Ms. Tanu, Advocate, vice Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. That the impugned office order dated 10-07-2024 & 19-07-2024 (Annexure-P/8& P/9) whereby the recovery of Rs. 1,98, 258/- has been ordered to be made from the DCRG of petitioner after her retirement wrongly and illegally, may kindly be quashed and set-aside in the interest of law and justice. II. That the respondents may kindly be directed to refund/restore the recovered amount of DCRG to the account of petitioner and the same may be ordered to be paid to petitioner along with interest @ 18% p.a immediately in the interest of law and justice.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, in terms whereof, recovery of Rs.1,98,258/- has been ordered from her on the ground that the said amount was wrongly paid to her and as there was an over-payment, therefore, the same was being intended to be rectified by way of recovery thereof. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:21688 petitioner retired as a Lecturer on 30.04.2024 and the impugned recovery order has been issued after her superannuation. She submitted that in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, AIR (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334, no recovery can be effected from a retired employee. Accordingly, she submitted that as the recovery order is against the judgment on the issue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. She further submitted that it is not the case of the Department that over-payment, if any, was made to the petitioner because of her active act of omission or commission and therefore, in this backdrop also, the impugned recovery is not sustainable. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed by the Department, has submitted that as an over- payment was made to the petitioner to which she was not entitled to, therefore, recovery thereof was rightly ordered by the Authority, because the petitioner was not entitled to the said amount and she had no right to retain the same. He accordingly submitted that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra) has inter alia been pleased to hold that in some of the circumstances 3 2026:HHC:21688 recoveries are impermissible in law and this includes recovery from retired employees. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that recovery was ordered from the petitioner after she had superannuated as a Lecturer in the year 2024. Therefore, as recovery from a retired employee is not permissible in law in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the recovery order issued against the petitioner, who was a retired employee, obviously was bad in law being against the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra). 8. Therefore, in light of above observations, this petition is allowed. Impugned Office Order dated 10-07-2024 (Annexure P/9) and Order dated 19-07-2024 (Annexure P/10) are set aside, to the extent that recovery of an amount of Rs.1,98,258/- has been ordered from the petitioner. It is further ordered that no recovery on the strength of these orders shall be effected from the petitioner. In case any recovery has already been effected from the petitioner, then the same be refunded back to her. 9. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 04, 2026 (Rishi)