IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15523/2026 Decided on: 10.09.2026 Hem Raj …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Dikken K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Grievance of the petitioner was noticed as under in the order dated 09.09.2026: - “Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner feels aggrieved against office order dated 26.08.2024, which according to the petitioner imposes recovery from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has preferred a representation on 29.08.2026 (Annexure P-3), detailing his grievance against the impugned office order. That neither the petitioner's representation has been considered and decided nor the impugned order can be said to be in consonance with law, Himachal Pradesh Civil Services 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, and also in consonance with principles of natural justice. Learned Deputy Advocate General prays for and is granted time to have instructions in the matter for addressing the grievances of the petitioner. List on 10.09.2026.” 2. Pursuant to above, learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 09.09.2026 from respondent No.3 addressed to respondent No.2, relevant portion of which reads as under: - “Kindly, this is with reference to telephonic discussion with ADA, PHQ, Shimla, it is submitted that pay fixation of HC Hem Raj No. 62 of this battalion has been re-fixed vide this office O.B. No. 99-IV-(i) dated 26.08.2026 in pursuance of clarification received from PHQ vide letter No. Fin-7(Rep. of Anuj & Ors/06/09/2023-24-2009577) dated 13th March, 2025 and the copy of the pay fixation has been served to HC Hem Singh No. 62. It is further submitted that recovery of the above fixation is being calculated and after the calculation of recovery amount, the notice will be served to the concerned official. The amount of recovery has not been recovered from the official hitherto.” 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the basis of instructions imparted to her, submits that, at present, no amount is being sought to be recovered from the petitioner. In case any recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, the same shall be effected only after following due process of law and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner. 3 In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, as the grievance of the petitioner, at this stage, is premature. The petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, in case, cause of action becomes available to him in future. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th September, 2026(rohit)