2026:HHC:3388 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 25 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.01.2026 ____________________________________________________ Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited ...Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar …Respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellant: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge By way of present appeal, appellant-Board has laid challenge to the judgment dated 18.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 16351 of 2024, titled, Ashok Kumar vs. HPSEBL, whereby, the petition preferred by respondent-writ petitioner has been allowed and the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) issued by the appellant- Board has been quashed, with a further direction to the appellant- Board to not affect any recovery from the pension of the writ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:3388 petitioner and the amount recovered prior to passing the judgment be refunded to him. 2. The main grouse by the appellant-Board in the present appeal is that the respondent-writ petitioner was inadvertently granted the benefit of promotional increments again, whereas, his pay ought to have been protected under the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised pay) Regulations, 2009, read with Office Order No.3 dated 16.08.2012, applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The learned Single Judge has not considered the matter in right perspective and thus, the judgment passed by him deserves to be quashed. 3. The facts which emerge from the judgment under challenge are that the writ petitioner was appointed as Superintendent (Non-Gazetted) on 17.10.1990 and now retired from the post of Senior Accounts Officer on 31.03.2012. When the writ petitioner was in service, the members of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Supervisory Accounts Services Association had filed the original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal claiming therein that the appellant-Board may be directed to grant time bound promotional scales to its members on completion of 9/16 years of 2 2026:HHC:3388 service from the date of their joining the induction post of SAS Superintendent(NG) with all consequential benefits and to pay arrears along with interest @18% p.a. The writ-petitioner was one of its members. The said original application was subsequently transferred to this Court in the year 2019 and was registered as CWPOA No. 3782 of 2019. 4. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 27.08.2021, had allowed CWPOA No. 3782 of 2019 and the communication dated 03.07.2001 issued by the appellant-Board was quashed and set aside and the appellant-Board was directed to grant all those members of the association the benefit of time bound promotional scale on completion of 9/16 years of service, who were eligible and left out as a consequence of communication issued by the appellant-Board from the date of their eligibility and further pay them the arrears along with interest @ 7% per annum. 5. The appellant-Board feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Single judge had preferred the appeal which came to be registered as LPA No. 30 of 2022, titled, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board versus HPSEB Supervisory Accounts Services Associations and another. 3 2026:HHC:3388 However, the said appeal preferred by the appellant-Board was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.04.2022. 6. Despite dismissal of the appeal, the appellant-Board did not comply with the directions given by the learned Single Judge which were affirmed by the Division Bench. The Contempt Petition was instituted by the association which was registered as COPC No.78 of 2022. However, during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the appellant-Board had implemented the directions and revised the pay of the petitioner and fixed his pay at 42,090/- per month as evident from perusal of (Annexure P-5), ₹ appended with the writ petition. 7. However, later on the appellant-Board on the basis of the observations raised by the Accounts Officer of the appellant- Board issued the said office order (Annexure P-6), whereby the pay of the writ petitioner was re-fixed as 39,720/-, who stood ₹ retired as Senior Accounts Officer on 31.03.2012. Not only this, the appellant-Board also passed an order to effect recovery of an amount of 86,707/-, from the writ petitioner as evident from ₹ (Annexure P-7), appended with the writ petition. 8. The writ petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid 4 2026:HHC:3388 orders, whereby, his pension was reduced after re-fixing his pay and further to make recovery against him filed a writ petition and prayed that the office order dated 18.08.2023, whereby his pay has been reduced after 11 years of his retirement and further subsequent recovery ordered to effect from him may be quashed and set aside. 9. The learned Single Judge vide judgment under challenge has allowed the said petition preferred by the writ petitioner on the premise that once the appellant-Board itself had re-fixed the pay of the petitioner in compliance of the directions contained in CWPOA No. 3782 of 2019 and filed compliance affidavit in contempt petition stating therein that pay of the writ petitioner has been re-fixed as 42,090/-, the same cannot be ₹ permitted to be recovered after the retirement of the writ petitioner who stands superannuated on 31.03.2012. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as 5 2026:HHC:3388 a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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 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 employer, 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." 10. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action, because same has drastic civil and evil consequences and as such the same is bad, especially when such recovery is being affected after a long period. 11. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 and held that the State cannot recover excess amount paid to the ex- 6 2026:HHC:3388 employee after the delay of 10 years. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-Board has laid challenge to the same that once the writ petitioner had already been granted the benefit of Time Bound Promotional Scales, it was inadvertently re-fixed vide Office Orders dated 02.08.2022 and 15.11.2022 on account of Time Bound Promotional Scales in accordance with the judgment of this Court in CWPOA No. 3782 of 2019 which has upheld in LPA No. 30 of 2022. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant- Board and perused the record carefully. 14. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was granted the benefit in terms of the judgment dated 27.08.2021 passed in CWPOA No. 3782 of 2019, that too, after the institution of the contempt proceedings by the members of the association, in which the writ petitioner was one of its members. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner had retired from service on 31.03.2012, and when he was in service, the petition was instituted by the association for the grant of the benefits which were granted by the learned Single Judge on 27.08.2021. It is also not in dispute that the appeal preferred by the appellant- 7 2026:HHC:3388 Board against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 3782 of 2019 was affirmed. 15. The appellant-Board issued office orders dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure P-5), whereby, the benefit of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was granted to the writ petitioner and his pay was fixed at 42,090/-. Thereafter, without ₹ issuing any show cause notice, the appellant-Board simply on the basis of the observations raised by the Accounts Officer had issued (Annexure P-6), whereby, the pay of the writ petitioner was reduced to 39,720/-, and thereafter vide Annexure P-7 had ₹ started making recovery of 86,707/-. ₹ 16. The writ petitioner who was agitating his grievances in the Writ Court, in the earlier round of litigation was held entitled to the grant of the benefit of Time Bound Promotional Scales on completion of 9/16 years of service and in compliance of the said directions, the appellant-Board had issued the office order on 15.11.2022, when the pay of the writ petitioner was fixed as 42,090/-. Once the judgment passed by the learned Single ₹ Judge had attained finality and thereafter the pay of the writ petitioner was re-fixed, the plea now raised by the appellant- Board that the pay of the writ petitioner was inadvertently re-fixed 8 2026:HHC:3388 cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that in case the writ petitioner was already granted the said benefit, there was no question to agitate the matter further in the appeal by the appellant-Board. Not only this, the benefits in terms of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation had been extended to the writ petitioner, and the appellant-Bard had portrayed before this Court in the contempt proceedings that they have complied with the directions and the notices issued against the officers were discharged. 17. It is settled law that any order which has civil or evil consequences, the least which is expected of an employer is to hear the affected employee before passing any order. In the present case admittedly, no notice had ever been issued before passing the impugned order which was quashed and further since the writ petitioner had retired on 31.03.2012, there was no justification to make any recovery from him under the guise that the writ petitioner was already extended the benefits. Had it been so, the appellant-Board could not have implemented the judgment passed in the earlier round of litigation. 18. It is not the case of the appellant-Board that the writ petitioner had ever made a mis-representation for receipt of 9 2026:HHC:3388 amount and once it is not so, the order of reducing his pay and further effecting recovery of the amount is not justified and the plea raised by the appellant-Board that the pay of the writ petitioner was inadvertently re-fixed in compliance of the directions given in the writ petition cannot be countenanced. 19. The learned Single Judge has succinctly dealt with the issue and has come to the right conclusion that the appellant- Board cannot be permitted to effect recovery the amount from the writ petitioner and further his pay cannot be reduced, which will adversely affect his pension. 20. Resultantly, we are of the considered view that the judgment under challenge does not warrant any interference and the same was passed on correct apprehension of facts and law. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merits is rejected and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed. However, no orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Chief Justice Judge 08th January, 2026 (Anurag) 10