Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deep Raj vs Unknown on 29 August, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, AT SHIMLA
.
ON THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 4304/2022
BETWEEN:-
DEEP RAJ, AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O SHRI SARVDAYAL,
R/O VILLAGE & P.O. HURLA, TEHSIL BHUNTAR,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.,
RETIRED INSPECTOR,HRTC KULLU UNIT,
KULLU, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
(BY MR. S. P. CHATTERJI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
OLD BUS STAND, SHIMLA-171003,H.P.
2. REGIONAL MANAGER,
HRT CORPORATION,
KULLU, UNIT, KULLU, H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
(MR. VIKAS RAJPUT, ADVOCATE)
____________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for admission after notice
this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan,
passed the following:
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2022 20:02:28 :::CIS
2
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the
.
following substantive relief:
"that office order dated 10.6.2020 (Annexure P-1) colly
may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of
recovery; consequently respondent directed to refund
the amount so recovered".
2 It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to
Class-III service and as such no recovery could have been
effected, in light of the various decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, as taken note by a Division Bench of this
Court in CWP No. 3145/2019, titled as S.S. Chaudhary
vs. State of H.P. & ors., decided on 24.3.2022, wherein
after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject,
it laid down the following parameters regarding recovery
effects, which would be impressible in law:-
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-
IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are
due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has
been made for a period in excess of five years, before the
order of recovery is issued.
(iv)Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even
though he should have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
.
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance
of the employer's right to recover.
(vi) Recovery on the basis of undertaking from the
employees essentially has to be confined to Class-I/Group-A
and Class-II/Group-B, but even then, the Court may be
required to see whether the recovery would be iniquitous,
harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far overweigh
the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
(vii)Recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and
Class-IV even on the basis of undertaking is impermissible.
(viii) The aforesaid categories of cases are by way of
illustration and it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give
any exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases.
Therefore, each of such cases would be required to
be decided on its own merit."
3 The case of the petitioner is squarely covered
under clauses (i), (ii), (iii) & (vii), of the aforesaid judgment.
4. In addition thereto, the case of the petitioner is
also covered by a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2022
AIR (SC) 2153.
5 Consequently, the impugned recovery order is
quashed and set aside and the amount, if any, recovered
.
from the petitioner, is ordered to be refunded to him.
6 The instant petition is disposed of, in the
aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Virender Singh)
r Judge
25th August, 2022.
(Pankaj)
