Petitioner challenged a recovery order issued post-retirement for alleged overpayment. The single-judge court relied on Rafiq Masih, holding recovery impermissible after superannuation, and quashed the order.
Office order dated 16.06.2023, directing recovery of Rs. 1,56,117/-, was quashed and set aside to the extent of ordering recovery.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:HHC:5472
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 1699 of 2024
Decided on: 18.07.2024
Surinder Singh … Petitioner
Versus
The 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. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3.
: Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) That the impugned recovery order as Annexure P-2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 1,56,117/- to the Petitioner.”
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
his services were regularized as a Mechanic-cum-Fitter Grade-II with effect from 01.01.1997. He was promoted as Junior Technician Grade-II with effect from 01.01.2017 and as Mechanic-cum-Fitter Grade-I w.e.f. 01.10 2018. The petitioner superannuated from the said post on 31.10.2022. His grievance is that after his superannuation vide impugned order Annexure P-2, dated 16.06.2023, the respondent has ordered recover of an amount of Rs. 1,56,117/- allegedly on account of the over payment of the wrong fixation of ACP.
3
as the petitioner in his capacity as a Technician was not entitled for the benefit of the ACP scheme but he enjoyed benefit of this scheme, therefore, the recovery was rightly ordered as excess amount stood paid the petitioner.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess
4
payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in other case, cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.”
5
16.06.2023, Annexure P-2, to the extent it orders recovery of an amount of Rs.1,56,117/- on account of over payment of wrong fixation of ACPS, is quashed and set aside. Rest of the order is not disturbed, as prayed for.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
July 18, 2024 ( narender )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a public employer can recover excess payments made due to wrong fixation of pay after the employee has superannuated.
Whether the remand order directing recovery is impermissible under the Supreme Court judgment in Rafiq Masih when issued post-retirement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)Relied on¶20
(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334
State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and othersRelied on¶26
(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surinder Singh
The State of Himachal Pradesh
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
