Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16659 (HP)

Pankaj Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-11

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned memo No.9-4/99 Wel-MND-Audit-IV-2477 dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) and all consequential actions for recovery initiated against the petitioner. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.18,000/-already recovered from the petitioner, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of recovery until the date of actual payment.” 2. The petitioner, who is a Class-III employee, is aggrieved by Annexure P-1 dated 09.07.2025, in terms whereof, recovery of an amount of Rs.41,406/- has been ordered by the employer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law for the reason that this communication has been issued at the back of the petitioner without any show cause, despite the fact that it has grave civil consequences as far as the petitioner is concerned and further the order is not sustainable in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, in terms whereof, inter alia, no recovery can be effected from Class-III and Class-IV employees. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the recovery has been ordered on account of overpayment made to the petitioner and, because, the recovery is only for the amount, which erroneously stood paid to the petitioner, therefore, there is no illegality in the recovery thereof. 4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged overpayment, if any, was not on account of any act of omission and commission of the petitioner and otherwise also in the light of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), as the petitioner happens to be a Class-III employees, no recovery in any circumstance could have been effected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving as a Class-III employee and the order impugned, for recovery of an amount of Rs.41,406/- has been passed at the back of the petitioner, without any show cause etc. However, because the petitioner is a Class-III employee and in terms of law declared by the State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), one of the situations which stands illustrated therein, wherein, recoveries by the employer have been held to be impermissible in law, includes recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees, therefore, in the light of the fact that herein, as the petitioner happens to be a Class-III employee, the recovery from him was impermissible in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 7. Therefore, as communication dated 09.07.2025 does violence to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih (supra), the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is ordered to be quashed and set aside. 8. Petition is disposed of in above terms. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.18,000/- approx. has already been recovered from the petitioner. Let the recovered amount be repaid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.