Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarkhand And Others on 20 May, 2025
2025:UHC:4218
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (SS) No. 344 of 2021
20th May, 2025
Devendra Pal Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarkhand and others.
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
According to the petitioner, he was serving on
the post of Regional Youth Welfare Officer and he was
superannuated from the said post on 30.06.2019 after
attaining the age of superannuation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 18.06.1988 on
the post of Regional Youth Welfare Officer; that, his
services were regularized on the said post vide order dated
17.08.1991 with immediate effect; that, the petitioner was
granted benefit of selection grade pay after completion of 10
years service by counting his ad hoc services; that, after his
retirement, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
11.01.2021 issued by respondent no.3/Zila Yuva Kalyan
Even Prantiya Rakshak Dal, Almora, whereby his pay has
2025:UHC:4218
been recalculated and the benefit, which was of selection
grade and promotional pay scale granted earlier to the
petitioner, has been withdrawn without giving any
opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioner.
Pursuant to this recalculation, an amount Rs.7,01,713/- is
directed to be recovered from the pension of the petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would
submit that the petitioner was wrongly given benefit of the
selection grade by taking into account of the services
rendered by him in ad hoc capacity and, after detecting this
mistake, the same was rectified. He further submits that it
is a case of rectification of mistake and, after exclusion of
the service rendered by the petitioner in ad hoc capacity,
his pay has been recalculated and re-fixed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then
submitted that since the petitioner has retired on
30.06.2019, therefore, the respondents could not have
ordered for recovery of amount from his gratuity. In order
to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
and Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the
Hon'ble Court has laid down guidelines for recovery from
employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or
Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). Relevant para of the
aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of
hardship, which would govern employees on the issue
2025:UHC:4218
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
herein above, we may, as a ready reference,
summarise the following few situations, wherein
recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible
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."
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has retired
from Group-'C' Post. In light of the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Punjab and others (supra), this Court of the view
that no recovery could have been made from the retiral
dues of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State would submit that the amount of
2025:UHC:4218
recovery has already been recovered from the gratuity of
the petitioner. Insofar as, issue regarding the recalculation
and re-fixation of salary of the petitioner is concerned, it
has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that
vires of the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018 is
subjudice before this Court. The petitioner would be at
liberty to agitate the matter of re-fixation of his salary after
the issue regarding vires of the Uttarakhand Retirement
Benefits Act, 2018 is decided by the Court.
7. Be that as it may, since no recovery could have
been made from the retiral dues of the petitioner as per the
dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid
judgment, therefore, the amount recovered from the
gratuity of the petitioner shall be returned back to the
petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
production of the certified copy of this order.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
20.05.2025
BS
BALWANT Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c582
0, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
SINGH
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14
A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.05.23 12:16:30 +05'30'
