O R D E R

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

“i) That the respondents may be directed to refund/release a sum of Rs. 77000/- towards alleged recovery on account of excess amount paid to the applicant, Rs.8106/- on account of GPF, Rs. 11,200 on account of LTC and Rs.40,000/- towards Group Insurance Scheme alongwith interest at the rate of 24%

per annum in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of communication dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A-1), vide which the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.11,200/- through challan within two days for settlement of LTC bill and further by issuance of Annexure A-2, office order dated 23.02.2017, vide which an amount of Rs.87,849/- has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner as an amount recoverable on account of re-fixation as pointed out Senior Account General, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the impugned communication as well as impugned order are not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that as these recoveries were intended to be effected after superannuation of the petitioner, the same were not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masiah (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334. Accordingly, she has prayed for quashing of abovesaid orders. No other relief was pressed.

4. Defending the impugned orders, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that as said amounts were due from the petitioner at the time of his retirement, therefore, there is no illegality in issuance of Annexure A-1 or Annexure A-2, vide which, the petitioner was called upon to deposit the balance amount of LTC and recovery as was due on account of re-fixation of pay was carried out from his retiral benefits. On these counts, learned Additional Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that communication dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A-1), as well as office order dated 23.03.2017 (Annexure A-2), are not sustainable in law. It is not in dispute that the petitioner superannuated from the service of the respondent-department as a Head Draughtsman on

31.12.2016. It is also not in dispute that no notice etc. qua recovery of the amount in question was issued to the petitioner while he was in service and both impugned Annexures were issued after the superannuation of the petitioner. The petitioner retired from the service of the respondent-department as Draughtsman. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) has been pleased to hold in para-18 thereof that recoveries by the employer, which would be impermissible in law include, recoveries from employees of Class-III and Class-IV service as well as the recovery from the retired employees or the employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. In the present case, the petitioner superannuated from the service of respondent- department as a Head Draughtsman on 31.12.2016. As already mentioned hereinabove, the impugned communication as well as office order, were issued thereafter. In this view of the matter, in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, as both these Annexures came into existence after superannuation of the petitioner, therefore, recoveries intended to be made/effected on the strength of the said Annexures are impermissible in law as the petitioner had already retired from service.

6. Accordingly, in view of what has been held hereinabove, this writ petition is disposed of by holding that the act of the respondent-department of calling upon the petitioner to deposit balance amount of Rs.11,200/- for se