1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3433 of 2026 Decided on: 20.03.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashok Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No. 1 to 6 which is waived by Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no requirement to issue notice to respondent No.7 or to call for reply from appearing respondents. Matter has according been heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner was elected as Pardhan of Gram Panchyat, Mouda, Development Block, Salooni, District 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Chamba. Respondent No.4- District Panchyat Officer, Chamba vide his office letter dated 12.11.2025 has ordered for recovering an amount of ₹46,362/- alongwith interest @12.5% per annum from the petitioner and proforma respondent No.8 in equal shares. Petitioner has grievance to the above office communication. 3. It appears that an amount of ₹1,80,000/- was sanctioned by the concerned Block Development Officer on 06.02.2023 for construction of water pipe line from Khamrah to Thaloga, in Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba under 15th Finance Commission provisions. The work was shown to have started by the concerned Gram Panchyat in March, 2025 and completed on 18.04.2025 after incurring an expenditure of ₹1,12,000/- as wages and ₹67810/- towards material i.e. in all ₹1,79,810/- were shown to have been spent on the work. On the complaint filed by respondent No.7, respondents No. 3 ordered respondent No.5 to revaluate the work. Re-assessment of work was got done by respondent No.6 on 23.08.2025 and work was assessed at₹1,33,638/-. Thus according to the respondents, there were short fall in the sum of ₹46,362/-. Accordingly, recovery of ₹46,362/- was ordered against the petitioner and proforma 3 respondent in their capacity as Pardhan and Technical Assistant, respectively. Petitioner’s contention is that evaluation of work has not been carried out correctly by the respondents; Complete work was not evaluated. Attention was also invited to an inquiry conducted by Panchyat Inspector, Development Block, Salooni, enclosed as Annexure P-4 where entire work is shown to have been completed at cost of ₹1,80,000/-. 4. Taking note of conflicting claim on facts, it will be appropriate to direct respondent No.4- District Panchyat Officer, Chamba to get the work in question re-assessed in accordance with law in presence of all concerned parties and thereafter, to proceed in the matter further as per law. Ordered accordingly. This exercise be carried out within six weeks from today. Till such time, recovery as ordered vide Annexure P-7 dated 12.11.2025 shall remain stayed. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 20, 2026 Judge yogesh