2026:HHC:16735 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7036 of 2025 Decided on: 13.05.2026 Sh. Narpat Ram … 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. Ramesh Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) The petitioner confines the present petition qua relief No.1 only. Relief No.1 reads as under:- “The Respondents may kindly be directed to reimburse the wrongly deducted amount of Rs.4,33,934/- to the petitioner.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the impugned order, after his superannuation certain recoveries have been ordered to be made from him on the alleged ground that certain over-payments have been made to him when he was in service in the shape of ACPs etc. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner superannuated on 30.09.2023, as a Complaint Attendant, which was a Class-III post, and the impugned orders have been issued thereafter. He submitted that in light of the fact that it is not 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16735 the allegation against the petitioner that he was instrumental to the alleged over-payments made to him and further that the Honble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, AIR 2015 SC 696, has categorically held that as no recoveries are permissible either from a Class-III employee or from a retired employee, the act of the respondent is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. On the other hand landed Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed as well as the documents appended with the pleadings and submitted that as the petitioner was made certain over-payments by way of ACPs, to which he was not entitled to and as it was clearly mentioned in the documents, in terms whereof, the payments were made to the petitioner that in case over-payments are found, the same will have to be refunded by the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that as the petitioner was not entitled to the over-payments already made to him and as the money belongs to the public exchequer, the petition be dismissed and the respondents be allowed to carry out the recoveries from the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders as well as pleadings and documents on record, this Court is of the considered view that this petition has to be allowed to the limited extent that the respondents cannot be 3 2026:HHC:16735 permitted to effect any recoveries from the petitioner on the basis of the impugned orders. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired as a Class- III employee. It is also not dispute that no steps were taken by the Authorities to effect any recovery from the petitioner before his retirement qua the amount in issue. It is not the case of the respondents that the cause on the basis of which the recovery was being effected, accrued only after the retirement of the petitioner. Obviously, as the stand of the respondents is that certain over- payments were made to the petitioner, because ACP was paid to the petitioner while he was in service, said payments were made to him when he was in service. There was ample time with the Department to have had recovered the same, but it chose not to do so before the petitioner superannuated. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra), has been pleased to cull out certain circumstances under which no recovery whatsoever can be made by the employer from the employee. These situations include recovery from a Class-III and Class-IV employee and recoveries from retired employees. 8. In the present case, the petitioner happens to be a retired employee as well as a Class-III employee. Recoveries were ordered to be effected from the petitioner after he superannuated. This act was impermissible in law in terms of the Judgment of the 4 2026:HHC:16735 Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra). Therefore, the act of the respondent-Department of ordering the said recovery from the petitioner obviously does violence with the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra). 9. Therefore, as the impugned orders, in terms whereof, recovery has been ordered, are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in the light of the Judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra), the said orders are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are further directed not to affect any recovery on the basis of said documents or otherwise from the petitioner and in case any recovery stood made, then the amount be refunded to him. 10. With these directions the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 13, 2026 (Rishi)