Back
2026 Supreme(HP) 343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Pankaj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
C.W.P. No. 15104 of 2025
Decided On : 11-03-2026
For the Appellants : Ayushi Sharma, Akshit Rana
For the Respondent: Rajpal Thakur
Recovery of erroneous overpayment impermissible from Class-III employees per Supreme Court law; requires show cause notice due to grave civil consequences.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recovery of excess payment - From Class-III employee - Impermissible as per law declared by Supreme Court - Recovery ordered without show cause notice despite grave civil consequences - Such recovery held not sustainable - Impugned order quashed and set aside - Refund of already recovered amount directed within eight weeks. (Paras 2, 6, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Class-III employee aggrieved by recovery order for excess payment issued without prior notice or opportunity to show cause; partial amount already recovered from employee.
Findings of Court:
Recovery impermissible from Class-III employee; impugned communication quashed; recovered amount to be repaid within eight weeks.
Issues: Whether recovery order valid without show cause notice given its civil consequences; permissibility of recovery from Class-III employee.
Ratio Decidendi: Recoveries by employer impermissible from Class-III and Class-IV employees even for erroneous overpayment; order issued at back of employee without notice not sustainable.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks quashing of recovery order lacking show-cause notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties debate overpayment recovery validity for class-iii employee. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. rafiq masih prohibits recovery from class-iii employees. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. impugned order quashed; refund of recovered amount ordered. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
MOHAN GOEL, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned memo No.9-4/99 Wel-MND-Audit-IV-2477 dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) and all consequential actions for recovery initiated against the petitioner.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.18,000/-already recovered from the petitioner, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of recovery until the date of actual payment.”
2. The petitioner, who is a Class-III employee, is aggrieved by Annexure P-1 dated 09.07.2025, in terms whereof, recovery of an amount of Rs.41,406/- has been ordered by the employer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law for the reason that this communication has been issued at the back of the petitioner without any show cause, despite the fact that it has grave civil consequences as far as the petitioner is concerned and further the order is not sustainable in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (2015) 4 SCC 334, State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, in terms whereof, inter alia, no recovery can be effected from Class-III and Class-IV employees.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the recovery has been ordered on account of overpayment made to the petitioner and, because, the recovery is only for the amount, which erroneously stood paid to the petitioner, therefore, there is no illegality in the recovery thereof.
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged overpayment, if any, was not on account of any act of omission and commission of the petitioner and otherwise also in the light of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), as the petitioner happens to be a Class-III employees, no recovery in any circumstance could have been effected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving as a Class-III employee and the order impugned, for recovery of an amount of Rs.41,406/- has been passed at the back of the petitioner, without any show cause etc. However, because the petitioner is a Class-III employee and in terms of law declared by the State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), one of the situations which stands illustrated therein, wherein, recoveries by the employer have been held to be impermissible in law, includes recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees, therefore, in the light of the fact that herein, as the petitioner happens to be a Class-III employee, the recovery from him was impermissible in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
7. Therefore, as communication dated 09.07.2025 does violence to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih (supra), the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is ordered to be quashed and set aside.
8. Petition is disposed of in above terms. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.18,000/- approx. has already been recovered from the petitioner. Let the recovered amount be repaid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
