2026:HHC:15056 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11581 of 2025 Decided on: 05.05.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Sunder Singh Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of HP & others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rohan Tomar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 3-State. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed refund the amount of Rs. 5,02,825/- recovered from the petitioner along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of recovery i.e. 31.03.2018 and further quash the notice dated 31.03.2018. (ii) That the office order dated 06.01.2023 regarding revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2016 may also be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to restore the pay of the petitioner as it stood prior to re-fixation intimated vide order dated 06.01.2023.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:15056 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed with respondent No.2-Bank in the year 1985 and retired as Senior Manager on 30.06.2016, on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, he was served with the recovery notice dated 31.03.2018 (Annexure A-1), stating therein that his salary was wrongly enhanced from 01.06.1997 to 30.06.2016, and thus he is liable to pay a sum of ₹4,81,323/-. Thereafter, vide communication dated 06.01.2023, the petitioner was informed that total amount to be recovered from him was calculated as ₹5,02,825/- on account of re-fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.06.1997. Vide letter dated 16.01.2023, it was conveyed that amount of ₹5,02,825/- is recoverable from him and the same will be recovered from gratuity arrears, pay arrears and other dues payable to him. 3. It has been averred in the petition that respondent No.2-Bank had granted the benefit of increment at its own and thus, the re-fixation cannot be carried out and the recovery notice is not based and passed on valid grounds. The petitioner had neither misrepresented nor played fraud and further even as per respondent No.2, no 3 2026:HHC:15056 employee of the bank was found involved in conferment of the increment upon him/her. Further in the absence of any direction by respondent No.3, no recovery could have been affected from the petitioner. 4. Respondent No.2-Bank filed reply to the petition and averred that the writ is not maintainable against it, since it has been constituted and governed by the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Societies Act, 1968. The claim raised by the petitioner is belated and barred by delay and laches. The petitioner was aware about the enquiry and corrective exercise being carried out by respondent No.2, yet he did not approach the appropriate Court/forum within a reasonable time. The petitioner had accepted the benefits of revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and respondent No.2 had adjusted overpayments against arrears/dues as permitted under the pay revision communications. So far as the judgment dated 28.03.2024, passed in CWP No.660 of 2018, Gopal Singh Kanwar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others a/w connected petitions is concerned, the petitioner was not a party in the said petition and thus, the judgment does not automatically bind respondent No.2 to extend identical 4 2026:HHC:15056 relief to non-parties without factual enquiry and verification. Respondent No.2-Bank has not denied the fact that provision for special increment for graduates was provided in 1996 and such increment was merged/considered as part of pay in earlier years. Grant of increments was a policy and administrative decision of respondent No.2-Bank and not an act of misrepresentation by an individual employee. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and also placed on record, copy of judgment dated 28.03.2024, passed in CWP No. 660 of 2018, titled, Gopal Singh Kanwar & others vs. State of HP & others, a/w connected petitions and also the judgment passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.242 of 2024, titled, Sanjay Mandyal vs. Gopal Singh Kanwar & others. In CWP No.660 of 2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the petitions and the impugned order dated 12.12.2017 was allowed to be quashed and set aside and it was ordered that amount, if any, recovered on account of recovery proceedings shall be refunded to the petitioners along with upto date interest. The said judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.242 of 2024. 5 2026:HHC:15056 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 7. It is not disputed by respondent No.2-Bank that the petitioner had made any misrepresentation or played fraud, when the benefit of increment on account of having the degree of graduate was extended to him. It is also not in dispute that the respondents had issued the recovery notice dated 31.03.2018, to the petitioner after his retirement and prior to this, no notice was served upon him and the petitioner had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016. It is also not disputed by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Gopal Singh Kanwar’s case (supra) has attained finality. 8. Once this Court has already adjudicated the similar issue in the aforementioned petitions and lead case whereof is Gopal Singh Kanwar (supra), this Court is bound to follow the said verdict. The learned Single Judge after considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, AIR 2015 SC 696 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in 6 2026:HHC:15056 CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019, titled, S.S. Chaudhary vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 24.03.2022, had set aside the decision dated 12.12.2017, passed by respondent No.3-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, H.P. on the basis of which, recovery notices were issued. The relevant para of the judgment read as under:- “17. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and other, AIR 2015 SC 696, which in turn came to be relied upon by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.3145 of 2019, titled as S.S. Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 24.03.2022. In the aforesaid judgment, following parameters came to be laid where recovery by the employer would be permissible/impermissible from the employee:- “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 higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. 7 2026:HHC:15056 (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 be 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/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 channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid 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.” 18. Apart from above, issue with regard to recovery from Class-III & IV employees after their retirement stands duly settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2022 AIR (SC) 2153, decided on 02.05.2022 and in Civil Appeal No. 5527 of 2022, Madhya Pradesh Medical Officers Association vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, decided on 26.08.2022. 19. Consequently in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petitions and accordingly same are allowed and impugned order dated 12.12.2017 passed by respondent No.2, in all the petitions, is quashed and set-aside and amount, if any, recovered on account of the recovery proceedings, shall be refunded to the petitioners alongwith upto date interest. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.” 8 2026:HHC:15056 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Gopal Singh Kanwar’s case (supra), once the Court had quashed the impugned order dated 12.12.2017, on the basis of which, the recovery notice was issued to the petitioner, respondent No.2-Bank cannot even re-fix the pension of the petitioner. This Court is not persuaded to accept the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, keeping in view the observations made by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforementioned judgment in Gopal Singh Kanwar’s case (supra) and the relevant para 14, whereof reads as under:- “14. This Court further finds from the order dated 12.12.2017, issued by respondent No.2 that direction was given to Managing Director to take corrective measures as suggested in the inquiry report dated 19.6.2013 and no specific direction ever came to be issued to the respondent-bank to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioners and similarly situate persons. No doubt, in terms of aforesaid directions issued by the respondent No.2, respondent-bank could have taken steps for re- fixation of the pay, but certainly there was no occasion for it to initiate recovery proceedings, especially when there was nothing to suggest that aforesaid benefit was availed/ taken by the petitioners on some misrepresentation.” 10. The co-ordinate Bench has specifically observed that no doubt in terms of the directions dated 12.12.2017 issued by respondent No.2 i.e. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, H.P., respondent No.2-Bank could have taken 9 2026:HHC:15056 steps for re-fixation of the pay, but certainly there was no occasion for it, to initiate recovery proceedings, especially when there was nothing to suggest that aforesaid benefit was taken by the petitioner on some misrepresentation. This Court has already held above that the recovery from an employee cannot be made after his retirement, if he has not made any misrepresentation or played fraud for getting the said benefits. However, the employer is at liberty to re-fix the pension, if the benefits have wrongly been extended to the employee, but no recovery can be made from him. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Madras High Court in R. Rajamani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 957, to contend that the re-fixation of salary and consequential pensionary benefits post-retirement cannot be made. Once this Court in the judgment of Gopal Singh Kanwar’s case (supra) has observed that respondent-Bank could have taken steps for re-fixation of the pay, this Court is not persuaded to accept the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court. In the present case, though the petitioner was issued recovery notice dated 31.03.2018 for an amount of Rs.4,81,323/-, but no 10 2026:HHC:15056 effective steps were taken by respondent No.2-Bank and thereafter, another communication dated 06.01.2023 was issued to him informing that recovery on account of re- fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.06.1997 is Rs.5,02,825/-. Later on, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 16.01.2023 that a sum of ₹5,02,825/- is recoverable from him and the said amount can be recovered from gratuity arrear, pay arrear and other dues, whereas, the total amount of recovery was only ₹4,81,323/- as on 31.03.2018. This Court is persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of recovery as per recovery notice dated 31.03.2018, amounting to ₹4,81,323/- cannot be made after the retirement of the petitioner, but so far the fixation of his pension is concerned that can be done in view of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Gopal Singh Kanwar’s case (supra). 12. No doubt, it will cause hardship to the petitioner, but once he was wrongly granted the benefit of increment, the mistake occurred can be rectified even if the petitioner has retired from service. The Court cannot permit to perpetuate the mistake simply on the basis that the 11 2026:HHC:15056 employee had not made any mis-representation. The employee is only protected to not effect any recovery from the retiral dues, but his pension can be re-fixed. 13. Consequently, the present petition is partly allowed and the impugned recovery notice dated 31.03.2018, issued by respondent No.2-Bank is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2-Bank is directed to refund the amount illegally recovered from the petitioner amounting to ₹4,81,323/-, to him, within three months from today. In case the amount is not refunded to the petitioner within three months from today, respondent No.2-Bank shall pay interest on the aforesaid amount @6% per annum from today till its payment. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 05 th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge