2026:HHC:16912 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8503 of 2023 Decided on: 14.05.2026 Prakash Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned order dated 03-01-2022 and 24-05- 2023 being Annexure P-1 of the writ petition, as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law and against the Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP/6427/2022 titled as Nityanand Sharma and Others Vs State and Others along with connected matters; (b) to issue a further writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof directing the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16912 respondent department to release the gratuity along with interest which has been withheld by the respondent authorities and to repay the amount if any recovered from the petitioner during the pendency of this Civil Writ Petition along with interest thereon @18%;” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-1, in terms whereof, the pay of the petitioner stands revised and certain recoveries have been ordered to be effected from him. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the office order relating to recovery was passed after the retirement of the petitioner, the same is not sustainable as no recovery can be effected from a retired employee in terms of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. He further submitted that the petitioner also happens to be a Class-III employee and on this count also, no recovery could be effected from him. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the State in general and paras 9 to 11 of the preliminary submissions thereof in particular and has justified the act of the State. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has referred to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this 3 2026:HHC:16912 Court in CWP 6427 of 2022, titled as Nitya Nand Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters, decided on 11.10.2023 and has submitted that Nitya Nand was also similarly situated as the present petitioner and in his case also, his pay was re-fixed and recoveries were ordered. Learned Counsel further submitted that whereas the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench did not interfere with the re-fixation of the pay but ordered that no recoveries shall be effected from the petitioner in said case. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, including the judgment being relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the fact that the recovery has been ordered to be made from the petitioner after his superannuation, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law in light of the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, inter alia, has been pleased to hold that no recoveries can be effected from a Class-III employee or from a retired employee. 7. Herein, incidentally, the petitioner both happens to be a Class-III as well as a retired employee. Therefore, obviously, the recovery that has been ordered to be made from the petitioner is not 4 2026:HHC:16912 sustainable in law. This petition is allowed on this limited point. 8. Though, this Court is not interfering with the order of re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner, but the order of recovery dated 03.01.2022 and 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside, with direction to the respondents not to effect any recovery on the basis of said order. The withheld amount belonging to the petitioner be released in his favour forthwith. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 14, 2026 (narender)