Suresh Kumar vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

Admittedly, recoveries have been effected from the petitioner, after his retirement, which are impermissible in law.

Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a detailed judgment of this Court in S.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P., through Principal Secretary, Information Technology, Government of H.P., Shimla and connected matters, 2022 (2) Him. L.R. (DB) 954, wherein this Court has laid down the following principles:-

1 ? Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

“ (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 channelised and inflexible gudielines 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.”

The case of the petitioner is squarely covered under clause (ii) of the aforesaid principles.

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned recovery notice dated nil (Annexures A-2) is ordered to be quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed that in case any amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of six weeks from today.

For compliance, to come up on 17.06.2024.

Pending applications(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.