Uttarakhand High Court
Managing Director vs Prakash Chandra Tiwari (Since ... on 8 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7002
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2276 of 2022
Managing Director, Uttarakhand
Parivahan Nigam and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Prakash Chandra Tiwari (since deceased)
represented through his LRs ...Respondents
Advocates : Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for the respondent.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
1. Employer has challenged order dated 27.05.2022
passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani in
Miscellaneous Case No. 02 of 2016. By the said order,
petitioner was directed to release Rs. 3,81,060/-, which
was sanctioned to the respondent as leave encashment
within two months, with a further direction to pay Rs.
12,223/- as arrears of salary between 18.01.1986 to
14.02.1987.
2. Respondent was appointed in U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) w.e.f. 15.05.1978. On
22.08.1985, he was put under suspension and
thereafter on 18.01.1986, he was removed from
service. He challenged the removal order before
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a writ petition. The
said writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court vide judgment dated 01.12.1986 by holding
that the authority who passed the removal order, was
not competent for the purpose.
2025:UHC:7002
3. In compliance of the said judgment, respondent
was reinstated in service vide order dated 14.02.1987.
Respondent was not paid the difference of salary for
the period during which he remained under suspension
nor he was paid salary from the date of his removal
from service till his reinstatement. Respondent retired
from the post of senior clerk on 31.07.2015 and at the
time his retirement, his basic pay was Rs. 38,106/- per
month.
4. Respondent approached learned Labour Court for
releasing the amount of leave encashment by
contending that he had 300 days earned leave in his
leave account and he was entitled to Rs. 3,81,060/- as
leave encashment.
5. He also claimed that he is entitled to Rs. 12,500/-
as arrears of salary for the period between his removal
from service till his reinstatement, as he was not paid
any salary for the said period.
6. Before learned Labour Court, petitioner took the
stand that there is no order by competent Court of law
to pay salary to respondent for the period between his
removal from service till the date of his reinstatement.
Regarding leave encashment, it was submitted that
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation is running in a bad
phase and due to its poor financial condition, none of
its employees has been paid leave encashment and the
leave encashment shall be paid to the employees when
their turn will come as per order of preference
depending on the date of retirement.
2025:UHC:7002
7. Based on material on record, learned Labour Court
returned a finding that a sum of Rs. 3,81,060/- was
sanctioned as leave encashment payable to the
respondent but the same has not been paid to him,
therefore, he is entitled to the said amount as leave
encashment.
8. Regarding arrears of salary between 18.01.1986
to 14.02.1987, during which respondent remained out
of employment on account of his removal from service,
learned Labour Court held that since Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court held that the removal order was quashed on
the ground that it was not passed by competent
authority, however, liberty was given to the employer
to proceed in the matter as per law; the employer did
not pass any order pursuant to the liberty given by
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, therefore, respondent is
entitled to arrears of salary for the said period.
9. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by
learned Labour Court on the ground that respondent
was not entitled to arrears of salary for the period he
remained out of employment as he had not discharged
any duty, therefore, principle of 'No Work No Pay' is
attracted.
10. It is further contended that while granting benefit
of Assured Career Progression Scheme to the
employees of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, pay
of the large number of employees was wrongly fixed
and excess amount was released to them.
2025:UHC:7002
11. It is further contended that when mistake was
detected, then a special audit team was constituted by
State Government and the said audit team started
audit of salary paid to 3395 employees of the
corporation in 2019; but, due to COVID-19 Pandemic,
work of audit could not be completed.
12. It is further contended that ACP of 3028
employees of the corporation has been corrected and
salary of 1011 employees has been reduced. In para 14
of the writ petition, following statement has been
made:
"14. That in pursuance to the special audit report, the
amount of leave encashment of the respondent has
been re-fixed from Rs.3,81,060/-to Rs. 3,15,880/-
and amount of Rs. 1,35,379/- has been paid in excess
to him under the head of Gratuity and an amount of
Rs.3,96,360/- has been paid in excess to him under
the head of salary due to wrongful refixation which
has to be recovered from the respondent. And as such
the petitioner corporation has to recover an amount of
Rs. 2,15,854/- from the respondent which has been
paid to him in excess due to wrongful fixation of
salary."
13. The contention regarding excess payment made to
respondent cannot be accepted at this stage as the said
contention was not raised before the learned Labour
Court.
14. Even otherwise also, in view of the law laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab
and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
others, no recovery of excess amount paid to Class-III
and Class-IV as salary, can be made unless such
employee has received such excess payment by playing
fraud.
2025:UHC:7002
15. It is not the case of petitioners that excess
payment was made on account of fraud or
misrepresentation by the respondent. Respondent
passed away on 27.08.2022 and his legal
representatives were substituted in his place.
16. From the order passed by learned Labour Court, it
is revealed that Rs. 3,81,060/- was sanctioned as leave
encashment to the respondent, therefore, learned
Labour Court rightly directed the petitioners to release
the sanctioned amount to him.
17. The direction to pay the arrears of salary to
respondent for the period between 18.01.1986 to
14.02.1987 also cannot be faulted as he was removed
from service by an officer not competent for the
purpose, therefore, removal order passed against him
is void-ab-initio. Thus it shall be deemed that no
removal order was passed against him and the
direction to pay arrears of salary, therefore cannot be
faulted.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent produced copy
of judgment dated 04.04.2024 rendered by Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022.
He submitted that recovery orders passed, by
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation against other
employees, on the ground that their pay was wrongly
fixed while granting benefit of ACP, was set aside by
learned Single Judge and the judgment rendered by
learned Single Judge was affirmed by Division Bench in
Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022 and other connected
appeals.
2025:UHC:7002
19. Perusal of the judgment rendered in Special
Appeal No. 245 of 2022 reveals that as many as 37
Special Appeals filed by Uttarakhand Transport
Corporation challenging judgment passed by learned
Single Judge, were dismissed.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails
and is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to release the
monetary benefits to the respondent within one month
from today. In case of delay beyond one month, unpaid
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
08.08.2025
Mahinder/
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.08.09 13:48:05 +05'30'
