Ramesh Thakur v. Municipal Corporation Shimla and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC14 May 2026CWP/1564/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

recovery of over-payment/excess payment; class-IV employee; New ACPS financial upgradation; wrong fixation of pay; Majdoor daily wage regularization; Municipal Corporation Shimla; show cause notice; principles of natural justice; condemned unheard; Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; S.S. Chaudhary CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019; CWP No. 1564 of 2020; Annexure P-1 quashed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned communication dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-1) quashed and set aside; no orders as to cost; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶¶32

Ramesh Thakur Vs Municipal Corporation Shimla and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned communication dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-1) quashed and set aside; no orders as to cost; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery of over-payment of Rs. 24,450/- ordered by communication dated 03.03.2020 can lawfully be effected from the petitioner, a class-IV employee who made no misrepresentation when the benefit was granted. +1 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

Since the petitioner is a class-IV employee and made no misrepresentation or representation when the benefit was granted, the recovery of the over-payment cannot be made from him.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Withdrawal of the benefit granted w.e.f. 01.04.2016 by way of recovery through the communication dated 03.03.2020 is impermissible in law.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

No order having civil/evil consequences can be passed by an authority without first issuing a show cause notice; the respondents had already taken the decision to recover Rs. 24,450/- by monthly deductions of Rs. 2100/- without issuing any notice to the petitioner.ratio¶¶27
The petitioner has been condemned unheard; being a class-IV employee against whom recovery was ordered without notice and without any misrepresentation on his part, no recovery can be made as per the communication dated 03.03.2020.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery from class-IV employee quashed — Ramesh Thakur, a Majdoor (daily-wage appointee, regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2007) of Municipal Corporation Shimla, was ordered recovery of ₹24,450/- by communication dated 03.03.2020 for the inadvertent grant of a second financial upgradation benefit under New ACPS w.e.f. 01.04.2016, by deduction of ₹2100/- per month, without any show cause notice. Relying on State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and S.S. Chaudhary v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019 (Division Bench, HP High Court), the Court held that recovery cannot be made from a class-IV employee who made no misrepresentation, that withdrawal of the granted benefit by recovery is impermissible in law, and that no order with civil/evil consequences may be passed without a prior show cause notice — the petitioner having been condemned unheard. Petition allowed; impugned communication (Annexure P-1) quashed and set aside; no costs.

¶1

( 2026:HHC:16803 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

CWP No.1564 of 2020 Decided on: 14^th May, 2026

Ramesh Thakur

....Petitioner

versus

Municipal Corporation Shimla and another ...Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr.Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.

¶10

For the respondents: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate vice Mr.Mukul Sood, Advocate.

¶11

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶12

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of communication dated 03.03.2020, whereby recovery of over payment of ₹24,450/- from the salary of the petitioner has been ordered.

¶13

The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Majdoor on daily wage basis on 01.05.1998 and thereafter his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2007. Vide communication dated 03.03.2020, a recovery of ₹24,450/- has been ordered from the petitioner on the plea that benefit under New ACPS granted on completion of required services is not correct in compliance with the

¶14

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

( 2026:HHC:16803 )

¶16

¶17

Finance Department instructions dated 07.09.2014 and 09.09.2014 and thus the matter was reexamined by the Accounts Section and over payment amounting to ₹24,450/had wrongly been paid to the petitioner by wrong fixation.

¶18

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.

¶19

The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was initially engaged as Majdoor on daily wage basis in January, 1999 and his services were regularized vide office order dated 01.04.2010 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2007. Consequent upon his regularization, his pay was re-fixed vide office order dated 27.10.2016, with clear stipulation that the fixation of pay is subject to verification by the Audit/Higher Authorities. The petitioner vide order dated 27.10.2016 was given first financial up-gradation w.e.f. 27.08.2011, on completion of four years of service as Majdoor and higher grade pay of ₹1650/- was allowed w.e.f. 01.10.2012, pursuant to the notification dated 27.09.2012,

¶20

( 2026:HHC:16803 )

¶21

¶22

issued by the Finance Department(Annexure R-1/3). Since the petitioner was already allowed second financial upgradation in term of ibid notification of Finance Department, he was not entitled for grant of benefit w.e.f. 01.04.2016 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.

¶23

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 classIV employee and further no notice has been issued to him prior to issuing communication dated 03.03.2020.

¶24

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 Court arrives at the conclusion that recovery if made from an employee would be iniquitous or harsh, the order of recovery may be

¶25

( 2026:HHC:16803 )

¶26

¶27

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 ₹24,450/from the salary of the petitioner, from the month of March paid April, 2020, by deducting a sum of ₹2100/- per month, which clearly shows that they had already taken a decision and no notice was issued to the petitioner.

¶28

Since the petitioner has been condemned 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

¶29

( 2026:HHC:16803 )

¶30

¶31

misrepresentation at the time of granting the said benefit to him.

¶32

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.

¶33

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 14^th May, 2026 Judge (naveen)

Ramesh Thakur v. Municipal Corporation Shimla and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Thakur v. Municipal Corporation Shimla and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkrishan and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Narinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Ram Singh Mehta Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Jawahar Lal Sharma Vs State of Hp

Kartar Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Yomawati Vs State of Hp