Hikmat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1722 UK

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1722 UK
Judgement Date : 5 August, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Hikmat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 August, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 Writ Petition No. 1069 of 2025 (S/S)

 Hikmat Singh                                               ........Petitioner

                                    Versus

 State of Uttarakhand and Others                          ........Respondents

 Present:-
        Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
        Mr. N.K. Papnoi and Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.


                                    JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to notice dated

02.06.2025, issued by the respondent no.4, Executive Engineer,

Construction Division, Public Works Department, Chamba, District

Tehri Garhwal. By it, the petitioner was required to deposit Rs.

15,69,447/- in the treasury so that it may be adjusted towards the

retiral dues payable to him. The petitioner also seeks directions that

the respondents may be directed to release the retiral dues.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was

appointed in the Public Works Department in the year 1981. Having

worked for many years, the petitioner retired on 31.05.2024, but the

retiral dues have yet not been paid. Instead, the respondent no.4/the

Executive Engineer has sent the impugned communication dated

02.06.2025, requiring him to deposit Rs. 15,69,447/-in the treasury

so that his retiral dues may be paid on the ground that this is the

excess payment that has been made to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was a Group D employee; the law relating to recovery from

Government employee has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White

Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. In the instant case, the

petitioner has been required to deposit the money, which is not

permissible.

5. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has discussed the law on the subject as to under what

circumstances excess payment made to a Government servant may be

recovered, and laid down the principles in Para No.18 as follows:-

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the 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."

6. Learned State Counsel admits that insofar as part of

recovery is concerned, it is impermissible, in view of the law, as laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).

7. In fact, in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has categorically held that recovery from employees

belonging to Class IV service is impermissible in law. Not only this, it

has also been held that recovery from retired employees is also

impermissible. In the instant case, the petitioner is a Group D

employee, who has been retired. After retirement, he has been required

to deposit Rs. 15,69,447/-, by the impugned communication dated

02.06.2025 of the respondent no.4/the Executive Engineer. It is

impermissible. Therefore, while setting aside the communication dated