2026:HHC:13792-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1326 of 2020 Decided on :27.04.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Joginder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla & another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj , Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of communication dated 03.03.2020, whereby recovery of over payment of ₹23,598/- from the salary of the petitioner has been ordered. 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the the petitioner was appointed as Majdoor on daily wage basis on 27.05.1998 and thereafter his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2007. Vide communication dated 03.03.2020, a recovery of ₹23,598/- has been ordered from the petitioner on the plea that benefit under New ACPS granted on completion of required services is not correct in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:13792-DB compliance with the Finance Department instructions dated 07.09.2014 and 09.09.2014 and thus the matter was re- examined by the Accounts Section and over payment amounting to ₹23,598/- had wrongly been paid to the petitioner by wrong fixation. 3. The petitioner has averred that the recovery has been made without any reason and the petitioner being a class-IV employee, no recovery can be affected from him. Further the said communication is without following principles of natural justice and further communication is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was initially engaged as Majdoor on daily wage basis we.f. 27.05.1998 and his services were regularized vide office order dated 30.05.2016 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2007. Consequent upon his regularization, his pay was re-fixed vide office order dated 09.11.2016, with clear stipulation that the fixation of pay is subject to verification by the Audit/Higher Authorities. The petitioner vide order dated 09.11.2016 was given first financial up-gradation w.e.f. 28.08.2001, on completion of four years of service as Majdoor and higher grade pay of 3 2026:HHC:13792-DB ₹1650/- was allowed w.e.f. 01.10.2012, pursuant to the notification dated 27.09.2012, issued by the Finance Department(Annexure R-1). Since the petitioner was already allowed second financial up-gradation in term of ibid notification of Finance Department, he was not entitled for grant of benefit w.e.f. 01.04.1016 which was allowed to him inadvertently. Thus, the order passed by the respondents is just and proper and the quashing of the same does not arise. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case file carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation at the time of granting him the benefit. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a class- IV employee and further no notice has been issued to him prior to issuing communication dated 03.03.2020. 7. It is now settled by the judgment of 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 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019, titled, S.S. Chaudhary vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, that in case 4 2026:HHC:13792-DB Court arrives at the conclusion that recovery if made from an employee would be iniquitous or harsh, the order of recovery may be quashed. In the present case, since the petitioner is a class-IV employee and further he did not make any representation, the recovery cannot be made. Admittedly, as per the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner was granted the benefit w.e.f. 01.04.2016, which was not permissible to him on completion of nine years of service, and that benefit was being withdrawn by making recovery while issuing communication dated 03.03.2020, which is impermissible in law. Not only this, even before issuing the said office order, no show cause notice was issued to him and it is settled law that no order which has any civil/evil consequences can be passed by an authority before issuing the show cause notice. If the communication dated 03.03.2020 is perused, the respondents had ordered to make recovery of the over payment amounting to ₹23,598/- from the salary of the petitioner, from the month of March paid April, 2020, by deducting a sum of ₹2,000/- per month, which clearly shows that they had already taken a decision and no notice was issued to the petitioner. 8. Since the petitioner has been condemned 5 2026:HHC:13792-DB unheard inasmuch as he is a class-IV employee, no recovery can be made as per communication dated 03.03.2020, more especially when the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation at the time of granting the said benefit to him. 9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned communication dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 27 th April , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge