Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed refund the amount of Rs. 5,02,825/- recovered from the petitioner along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of recovery i.e. 31.03.2018 and further quash the notice dated 31.03.2018.

(ii) That the ofÏce order dated 06.01.2023 regarding revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2016 may also be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to restore the pay of the petitioner as it stood prior to re-fixation intimated vide order dated 06.01.2023.”¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed with respondent No.2-Bank in the year 1985 and retired as Senior Manager on 30.06.2016, on attaining the age of suHperannuation. After his retirement, he was served with the recovery notice dated 31.03.2018 (Annexure A-1), stating therein that his salary was wrongly enhanced from 01.06.1997 to 30.06.2016, and thus the is liable to pay a sum of ₹4,81,323/-. Thereafter, vide communication dated 06.01.2023, the petitioner was informed that total amount to be recovered from him was calculated as ₹5,02,825/- on account of re-fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.06.1997. Vide letterhdated 16.01.2023, it was conveyed that amount of ₹5,02,825/- is recoverable from him and the same will be recovered from gratuity arrears, pay arrears and other dues payable to him.

3. It has been averred in the petition that respondent No.2-Bank had granted the benefit of increment at its own and thus, the re-fixation cannot be carried out and the recovery notice is not based and passed on valid grounds. The petitioner had neither misrepresented nor played fraud and further even as per respondent No.2, no employee of the bank was found involved in conferment of the increment upon him/her. Further in the absence of any direction by respondent No.3, no recovery could have beenaffected from the petitioner. H

4. Respondent No.2-Bank filed reply to the petition and averred that the writ is not maintainable against it, since it has been constituted and governed by the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperatitve Societies Act, 1968. The claim raised by the petitioner is belated and barred by delay and laches. The petitioner was aware about the enquiry and corrective exercise being carried out by respondent No.2, yet he did not approach the appropriate Court/forum withinha reasonable time. The petitioner had accepted the benefits of revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and respondent No.2 had adjusted overpayments against arrears/dues as permitted under the pay revision communications. So far as the judgment dated 28.03.2024, passed in CWP No.660 of 2018, Gopal Singh Kanwar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others a/w connected petitions is concerned, the petitioner was not a party in the said petition and thus, the judgment does not automatically bind respondent No.2 to extend identical relief to non-parties without factual enquiry and verification. Respondent No.2-Bank has not denied the fact that provision for special increment for graduates was provided in 1996 and such increment was mergeHd/considered as part of pay in earlier years. Grant of increments was a policy and administrative decision of respondent No.2-Bank and not anact of misrepresentation by an individual employee.

5. The petitionetr filed rejoinder to the reply and also placed on record, copy of judgment dated 28.03.2024, passed in CWP No. 660 of 2018, titled, Gopal Singh Kanwar & others vs. State of HP & others, a/w connected petitions and also the judgment passed by theDivision Bench in LPA No.242 of 2024, titled, Sanjay Mandyal vs. Gopal Singh Kanwar & others. In CWP No.660 of 2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the petitions and the impugned order dated 12.12.2