IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 15699 of 2026. Decided on : 10 th September , 2026 Beli Ram ...Petitioner. Versus HRTC & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Notice. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. In view of the nature of the impugned consideration order passed by the respondents on 23.02.2026, and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. Matter is accordingly heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent Road Transport Corporation and feels aggrieved against the consideration order dated 23.02.2026 passed by respondent No. 1, rejecting his case for release of withheld amount of his retiral benefits. Petitioner was appointed as Workshop Helper in the respondent-Corporation on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 15.11.1982. He was promoted to the post of Fitter on 02.11.1995. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Mechanic on 11.10.2006 and subsequently to the post of Head Mechanic on 30.06.2014. He superannuated on 31.01.2016. According to the respondents, while finalizing petitioner's pension case, it transpired that pay fixation of the petitioner, consequent upon his promotion to the post of Fitter, had been erroneously fixed at ₹1,365+15 AP, whereas the correct pay fixation ought to have been ₹1,365/- instead of ₹1,365+15 AP. Accordingly, petitioner's pay was re- fixed for the period from 02.11.1995 to 31.01.2016 and in this manner, an amount of ₹1,09,732/- was found to have been paid in excess to the petitioner during 02.11.1995 to 31.01.2016. This necessitated recovery of the amount from the petitioner. In terms of the impugned consideration order, petitioner had furnished a written undertaking at the time of his promotion to the post of Head Mechanic to the effect that he had no objection to the recovery of the amount found to have been paid in excess to him on account of wrong pay fixation, therefore, notwithstanding the law laid down in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors.2, the amount was liable to be recovered from him. 2(2015)4 SSC 334 3 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors2 has held that recovery by the employer from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV services, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer in excess of their entitlement, would be impermissible. A Division Bench of this Court relying upon the aforesaid judgment and on consideration of several other precedents in the timeline including Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.3 has held as under in S.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. and Others4:- “35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:- (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a 3(2012)8 SCC 417 4 CWPOA No. 145 of 2019, decided along with connected matters on 24.03.2022 4 higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. (vi) Recovery on the basis of undertaking from the employees essentially has to be confined to Class- I/Group-A and Class-II/Group-B, but even then, the Court may be required to see whether the recovery would be iniquitous, harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far overweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. (vii) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV even on the basis of undertaking is impermissible. (viii) The aforesaid categories of cases are by way of illustration and it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently formula and to give any exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases. Therefore, each of such cases would be required to be decided on its own merit.” In Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.5 Hon’ble Apex Court held that excess payment made to an employee cannot be recovered, if such payment was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. Also, excess payment to 5SLP© No(s) 5918/2024 decided on 04.04.2024. 5 the employee due to any wrong application of the rule or incorrect calculation on the part of the employer is not recoverable. Petitioner had superannuated as Class III employee of the respondent-Corporation. The amount in question was statedly paid in excess to him with effect from 02.11.1995 to 31.01.2016. No concealment of facts, fraud or misrepresentation on part of the petitioner has been projected by the respondents in release of the pay to the petitioner during the period in question. In such circumstances, the principles laid down in the above-extracted decisions would be attracted. Even if the petitioner had furnished an affidavit or undertaking for not objecting to recovery of the amount, as alleged, his legal rights, in view of settled legal position cannot be obliterated by such undertaking. Further, it is to be seen that such affidavit was statedly furnished by the petitioner in the year 2014, whereas the amount was paid to him from 1995 to 2016. The recovery would otherwise be inequitable and harsh upon the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed. Impugned office order dated 23.02.2026 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reimburse the amount in question to the petitioner within six weeks from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 5% per annum. It is, however, clarified that this order is confined only to the recovery of the withheld 6 amount from the petitioner. The pension shall be payable to the petitioner in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th September, 2026. (jai)