2026:HHC:13239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.9100 of 2024 Decided on: 21 st April, 2026 __________________________________________________________________ Dhian Singh ....Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocate, vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present writ petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent corporation to pay the amount of Rs.21015/- which has been recovered from the DCRGs payment alongwith upto date interest. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed not to impose any recovery from the pension i.e. Rs.1634/- from the petitioner in the interest justice and fair play.” 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver with the respondents-Corporation, on regular basis, on 26.02.1982. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Inspector and retired from service on 31.12.2011, on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering 29 years, 10 months and 3 days of service. 3. After retirement of the petitioner, respondent No.3 had recovered a sum of Rs.21,015/- from the petitioner, on account of excess payment made to him, from the amount of revised gratuity as evident from a perusal of communication dated 03.12.2016 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner was held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,74,465/- towards the amount of revised gratuity, however, he was only paid a sum of Rs.4,53,450/- and thus Rs.21,015/- was not paid to him. 4. The petitioner thereafter made a representation dated 19.11.2023 (Annexure P-3), requesting therein to release the arrears on account of revised gratuity amounting 3 to Rs.21,015/-. However, as per the information given to him, vide communication dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-4), it was conveyed that as per the details received from the Accounts Section of the respondents-Corporation, the petitioner was overpaid a sum of Rs.26,649/- (during the pay arrear of 01.01.2006), hence the recoverable amount of Rs.26,649/- was adjusted in his revised DCRG’s balance payment of Rs.21,015/-. It was also disclosed to the petitioner that a sum of Rs.1,634/-of overpayment is still pending from the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned action of the respondents-Corporation, on the ground, that the amount recovered from him is illegal and against the mandate of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.3145 of 2019, titled, S.S. Chaudhary vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 4 24.03.2022. 6. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal’s case, if by mistake, the employer has paid the amount to its employee and later on discovered it, the excess payment made by mistake or negligence, can be recovered from the employee. 7. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in S.S. Chaudhary’s case (supra) is concerned, it has been stated that there is no inflexible rule regarding the recovery as culled out in the said judgment and thus the action on the part of the respondents-Corporation to adjust the amount of Rs.21,015/- on account of erroneous pay fixation is justified and this Court may not like to interfere with the said action on the part of the respondents-Corporation. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had retired 5 from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation when he was paid excess amount. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was paid the amount of Rs.26,649/- during the pay arrears of 01.01.2006. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had retired as a Class-III ofÏcial. 10. This Hon’ble Court in S.S. Chaudhary’s case (supra) has culled out the circumstances after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) and held that the recovery from retired employees or employees, who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, cannot be made. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.2011 and the recovery has been done out of the amount of revised gratuity to be payable to him in the year 2016, which is after 5 years of his retirement and further to the amount which was given to him while granting the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 6 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) has already held that the recovery from the employees would be impermissible in law, in cases, where the employees are due to retire within 1 year of the order of recovery. In the instant case, the petitioner had retired much earlier, i.e. on 31.12.2011 and thus the action on the part of the respondents to adjust the amount from the amount of revised gratuity payable to the petitioner, as evident from a perusal of communication dated 03.12.2016, is wholly illegal and unjustified. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents-Corporation is directed to pay an amount of Rs.21,015/- which has been recovered from the amount of gratuity payment to the petitioner and further the respondents-Corporation is also restrained from making any recovery from the pension being paid to the petitioner. In case the amount of Rs.21,015/- is not paid to the petitioner within three months from today, the respondents- 7 Corporation shall pay the same along with interest @6% per annum from today till the actual payment. 13. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21 st April, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge