IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1643 of 2025

Date of Decision: 11.12.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Chaman Singh ……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bodh Raj Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan

Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for

respondents/State.

Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for respondent

CNo.5.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Petitioner herein, who was a Class-III employee and has

gsuperannuated from the post of Head Teacher, GPS Lohani, Education

Block Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh on 31.1.2023, is aggrieved by recovery of Rs. 44,600/- from his bank account on account of alleged excess payment received by him during his service

career.

2. Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner herein was appointed as Voluntary Teacher w.e.f. 4.3.1992 and thereafter, his services were regularized as JBT teacher on 1.8.1998. On 18.8.2021, petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Teacher and

was posted at GPS Lohani, Education Block Salooni, DisPtrict Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. After his having rendered more than 20 years of service, petitioner ultimately retired on 31.1.2023, after his having attained age of superannuation. Vide e-challan dated 20.6.2023, sum of Rs. 44,600/-, came to be recovered from the bank account of the petitioner on account of alleged excess payment received by him during his service tenure. t

3. In nutshell, case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Bodh Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since amount otherwise sought to be recovered from the petitioner after his retirement was never received by him on account of misrepresentation or fraud, rather same was given to him on account of his placement as Head Teacher, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to recover the afore amount.

iIn support of his claim, Mr. Bodh Raj, learned counsel, placed heavy reliance upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 (2), wherein it has been categorically held that recovery from Class-III and IV employees is wholly impermissible, especially after retirement.

4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein it has been submitted that as per Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 (in short the “Rules”), the pay scale of JBTs is identical/same in the pay matrix and hence benefit of FR 22(1)a(i) is not available tPo those Head Teachers who are promoted on or after 1.1.2016. Since benefit of FR22(1)a(1) was granted to the petitioner on 19.8.2021 before notification of the Rules, which are effective from year 2016, same was rightly withdrawn and one increment has been reduced, as a result thereof, recovery of amount of Rs. 44,600/- was made from the petitioner and deposited in the ttreasury vide challan dated 20.6.2023.

5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that amount otherwise sought to be recovered was never payable to the petitioner and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while effecting recovery qua the same. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Kahol placed reliance upon the judgment dated 17.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., wherein it came to be ruled that any amount received/paid without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships, but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an o