1 ( 2026:HHC:18480 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.759 of 2026 in LPA No.310 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 19.05.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Appellants Versus Joginder Singh ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice, Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). CMP(M) No.759 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 370 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed off accordingly. LPA No.310 of 2026 3. Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.6473 of 2024 titled Joginder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 04.01.2025, wherein the order of recovery 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 was quashed and directions were issued not to effect any recovery and if any recovery had been effected, then the recovered amount was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner- appellant within a period of three months, failing which the petitioner was held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment till the date of payment. 4. The reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the employee was a Class-III employee and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, that the recovery could not be effected from such an employee the relief has been granted. 5. It was noticed that the petitioner-employee was granted the benefit of three-tier pay scale structure and the benefit of 4-9-14 years Old ACP Scheme, to which he was not entitled to and the excess amount had been ordered to be recovered and the payments were made to the him not on account of any act of his and then he was not privy to the grant of the same. 6. Counsel for the appellants-State has submitted that if the wrong payments are made, the appellants-State is always in a position to rectify the error and reliance has been placed upon 3 the judgment of the Apex Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana High and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 4 SCC 267. 7. We have gone through the paper-book and find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, rather the judgment as referred to above, supports the case of the employee as per the stand of the appellants-State itself. It is the specific case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Mason in the year 1992 on daily wage basis and regularized in the year 2001 and the recovery of Rs.1,08,059/- was on account of excess payment made w.e.f. 27.08.2009 to 31.12.2015 amounting to Rs.92035/-. Similarly, out of the amount of Rs.16,024/-, the respondent department had recovered the amount of Rs.8000/- from the salary of the petitioner-respondent in the month of August, 2022 and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,059/- was to be recovered from salary vide impugned recovery notice (Annexure P-1). 8. Reply of the appellants-State as such was that after re-designation of the petitioner as Junior Technician (Mechanic- cum-Fitter Gr.II), the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 01.09.1998 further granted 3 tier pay structure to the category of Junior Technician in the ratio of 20:30:50 under its ACP Scheme 4 to eliminate stagnation in career progression. The benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- was granted to the petitioner-respondent on his placement as Technician Grade-II (Mechanic-cum-Fitter) vide office order dated 02.04.2014. The benefits of the new ACP Scheme were also granted to him on completion of 4 years w.e.f. 27.08.2009 and 9 years w.e.f. 01.01.2010 which was granted on notioinal basis w.e.f. 09.08.2012 and on actual basis w.e.f. 09.08.2012 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+2400 Grade Pay vide office order dated 07.03.2014. The proficiency benefit earlier granted vide order dated 02.04.2014 was withdrawn by order dated 31.12.2021 and further his pay was regulated vide order dated 24.03.2022 and thereafter the petitioner’s pay was re-fixed accordingly. Resultantly, on account of the re-fixation of pay of the petitioner-respondent vide order dated 24.03.2022, the excess amount of Rs.28,000/- had been recovered out of Rs.1,08,059/- and the remaining amount of Rs.80,059/- is yet to be recovered. 9. Apparently, the appellants-State did not issue any notice to the petitioner-respondent intimating him that his pay as such was being re-fixed and the recovery was being done on that count also. The principles of natural justice were violated and, 5 therefore, we are of the considered view that the said order was not sustainable on this ground. 10. Another reason to uphold the order dated 04.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge apart from the fact that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and was drawing the said amount from 01.09.1998 till 31.12.2021 is that in view of the law laid down in Rafiq Masih case (supra) under Clause (iii), the 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, would also the impermissible in law and on that count also, the judgment cannot be faulted with in any manner. 11. Reliance placed upon Jagdev Singh case (supra), would be of no help as such as in that case, the finding was recorded that an undertaking had been given by the Officer to refund the amount while opting for the revised pay scale and he was bound by the undertaking and, therefore, the judgment of the High Court had been set-aside, while allowing the Civil Appeal. It was noticed that the employee as such was serving in the Superior Judicial Services at that time and had given the undertaking to refund any excess amount and the revised pay scale in the selection grade had been allowed and in such circumstances, the Apex Cout had found that the recovery was 6 justified while distingushing the judgment in Rafiq Masih case (supra) also. 12. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance upon the same is also misplaced particularly since the employee is a Class-III employee and the payments had been received consistently for a prolonged period from the year 1998 to 2021 and it was the fault of the appellants-State itself to grant the said amount. In such circumstances, no fault can be found in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th May, 2026 (Munish Thakur)