2026:HHC:10317 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 302 of 2024 Decided on: 06.04.2026 Parshotam Ram …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mrs. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i). That the impugned Office Order No. 46/2022-23 dated 16th July, 2022 (Annexure P-3) and impugned Office Order No. 292/2022-23 dated 13th October, 2022 (Annexure P-5) may kindly be quashed and set-aside. 11) That the Respondent Corporation may further be restrained from recovering an amount of Rs. 53,373/- paid to the petitioner on account of benefit of ACP granted to him vide Office Order No.54/2020-21 dated 29th July, 2020 (Annexure P-2) in future, in the interest of justice. ” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:10317 are that the petitioner, who is serving as a Driver, which is a Class- III post, with the respondent-Corporation, has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.53,373/- by way of 20 monthly installments in terms of the impugned office order dated 16.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) and office order dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that the some anomaly took place when the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed vide office order dated 30.07.2022 resulting in excess payment to him. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in light of the fact that the petitioner was paid wages after re-fixation of his pay by the Corporation concerned and excess payment made, if any, was not on account of any act of commission of the petitioner nor was the petitioner instrumental in the same with any ulterior motive, the act of the respondents of initiating recovery of said amount is per se bad. This is because Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334, has been pleased to hold that recovery from the employees belonging to Class- III and Class-IV categories is “impermissible in law” and no recovery can be effected from them by the Department. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that petition be allowed by quashing the impugned 3 2026:HHC:10317 office orders and a direction be issued to the respondents not to effect any recoveries from the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- Corporation has argued that as the petitioner was paid amount not payable to him as the petitioner was not entitled to receive said amount, the recovery effected is as per law and the petitioner cannot be allowed to have windfall gain at the expense of public exchequer. Learned Counsel further submitted that when the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed, it was clearly mentioned that if any discrepancy was found, the petitioner will be liable to repay the excess amount, if any. She submitted that there is no infirmity in the act of recovery being effected by the Corporation and this petition deserves outright dismissal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. It is a matter of record that the petitioner is a Class-III employee. It is also a matter of record that recovery of Rs. 53,373/- stands ordered from him on the ground that the petitioner was paid this amount on account of wrong re-fixation of his pay by the Corporation. This means that the excess amount that has been paid 4 2026:HHC:10317 to the petitioner is on account of some omission or commission on the part of the Corporation and it is not as if the petitioner was instrumental for the overpayment to him. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334, inter alia has been please to hold that under certain circumstances, recoveries from Class-III and Class-IV are impermissible in law. Recently, in Thomas Daniel versus State of Kerala 2022 SCC online SC 536, decided on 02.05.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to reiterate the said principle laid down in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) that recoveries from retired employees and Class-III and Class-IV employees are impermissible. 7. In view of above pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned act of the respondent-Corporation is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In light of the fact that the petitioner was not responsible for the payment of excess amount, if any, to him, the respondent cannot effect recovery thereof from the petitioner as he is a Class-III employee. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned office orders dated 16.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) and 13.10.2022 (Annexure P-5) are quashed and set aside and the respondents are restrained 5 2026:HHC:10317 from effecting any recovery from the petitioner and if any recovery stood effected, then the said amount be paid back to the petitioner forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 06, 2026 (narender)