November vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5357 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

November vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 10 November, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                       2025:UHC:9873



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Writ Petition Service Single No. 629 of 2024
                       10 November, 2025


Karam Chand                                 ... Petitioner
                               Versus

State Of Uttarakhand & others               ... Respondents
                                With
                     WPSS No. 633 of 2024
                     WPSS No. 638 of 2024
                     WPSS No. 639 of 2024
                     WPSS No. 641 of 2024
                     WPSS No. 727 of 2024
                    WPSS No. 1565 of 2024
                    WPSS No. 1436 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Tapan Singh & Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocates for the
petitioners
Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

                           JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners are serving as Assistant Teacher, Junior High School/Headmaster, Government Primary School in the Education Department of the State. All the petitioners have retired from service on different dates. They are aggrieved by recovery made by the Authorities of Education Department from their retiral dues.

2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common

2025:UHC:9873 judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 629 of 2024 alone are being considered and discussed.

3. In WPSS No. 629 of 2024, petitioner has sought the following relief:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to return the recovered amount of Rs. 5,64,568/-

along with 18% interest from the date of recovery upto date of its realization to the petitioner, which was recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner.

4. According to petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Shahipur, Block Khanpur, District Haridwar in the pay scale of ₹4500-7000, on 31.12.2005; he was promoted in the year 2008 to the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Junior High School in the pay scale of ₹5500-9000; he completed age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years, on 03.01.2021, however, he was permitted to serve as Teacher till end of academic session, i.e. 31.03.2021, in terms of Government Policy. A sum of ₹5,64,568/- was recovered from the amount payable as Gratuity to him, vide order dated 26.07.2022 passed by Senior Treasury Officer.

5. A counter affidavit is filed by Mr. Ashutosh Bhandari, District Primary Education Officer, Haridwar. Relevant extract of para 4 of the counter affidavit, which indicates the defence taken by the Department, is reproduced below:-

"As per the fitment table, minimum basic pay in Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- is pay band of Rs. 17140/-. The petitioner has received the benefit of fitment table (annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) and thus, received

2025:UHC:9873 excess amount by taking advantage of erroneous pay determination. When the fact of wrong pay fixation of teachers came to the knowledge of the respondent authorities, thereafter, an order was issued by the Director, Primary Education on 28.04.2018 and directions were given to all District Education Officers to proceed for recovery of excess salary/payment made as a result of the said erroneous determination to the teachers, against which Writ Petition No. 990/SS/2018 (main petition) Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and other connected Writ Petitions were filed before this Hon'ble High Court in the year 2018. In the petitions in question, in the year 2018, the Hon'ble Court passed an interim order directing the respondent authorities not to make any recovery from the concerned petitioners, but no such petition was filed by the petitioner at that time/ The petitioner retired on 3.7.2020 and Rs. 5,35,121/- were recovery from the retiral dues of the petitioner vide payment order dated 11.5.2022 (annexure no. 4 to the writ petition). The petitioner approached the Hon'ble Court after 2 years of his retirement.

It is submitted that vide order dated 6.11.2023, the Hon'ble Court partly allowed the Writ Petition No. 990/SS/2023 (main petition) Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and other connected bunch of writ petitions. But the recovery of the said petitioner has been made before the decision of the Hon'ble Court and in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court order dated

06.11.2023, no recovery has been made from the concerned employees."

6. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner was wrongly given monetary benefits in excess of what he was entitled to, therefore, Departmental Authorities are well within their right to recover excess amount paid to him. He relies upon Section 72 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 for contending that petitioner cannot retain the amount, which was paid to him in excess of his entitlement.

7. From the pleadings made in counter affidavit, one thing is clear that petitioner is not responsible in any manner for getting the extra amount. Whatever amount was paid to him was on account of decision taken by Departmental Authorities and it is not the

2025:UHC:9873 case of respondents that petitioner played fraud or he was otherwise instrumental in getting the extra amount. Learned State Counsel has relied upon a judgment dated 09.10.2025 rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 1810 of 2022 with other connected matters, where liberty was given to Departmental Authority to re-fix the pay of petitioners at the appropriate level, as per applicable Government Policy/Rule.

8. Their Lordships' in the case of State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, have held that no recovery can be made from employees, who have retired from service or those who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. Para no. 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

"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".

2025:UHC:9873

9. The aforesaid view was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Union of India & others vs. N.M. Raut & others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3873. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:-

"21. In other words, the respondents would be entitled to the benefits of the MACPS only after taking into consideration all the financial upgradations earned by them, in terms of the CCS RP Rules. Financial upgradations under the said Rules have to be accounted for and will be treated as financial upgradations earned for the purpose of reckoning the 10-year intervals and the three assured financial upgradations, in terms of Grade Pay, under the MACPS.

22. We are informed that, in the present case, the Government of India had implemented and executed the MACPS by granting benefits to the respondents and, later on, recoveries were initiated. As many of the employees may have retired, in terms of the decision of this Court in "State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)10, we deem it appropriate to direct that the Union of India will not effect any recovery of arrears from the retirees or those who are retiring within one year from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.

23. In other cases, the recoveries may be made after issuing notice to the employee concerned, whose request for proportionate recovery over a period of time not exceeding two years, may be considered depending upon the quantum of recovery which is to be made. We also deem it appropriate to direct that the appellant, Union of India, will not charge interest on the amount to be recovered as they themselves had made the payment and, the issue being debatable, to ask the employees to pay interest at this distant point of time may lead to difficulty both in calculation as well as in payment.

24. However, it is clarified that the pension and the pay scale, which are payable shall be re-determined on the basis of this judgment and will apply prospectively with effect from 01.01.2025.

25. Where recoveries have been made from the retirees, the same shall be refunded. However, in the case of serving employees, where recoveries have been made, the same need not be refunded.

26. We also clarify that we have not made any comments or observations on any petition/appeal which is filed challenging the validity and legality of Clause 8.1 of the MACPS"

2025:UHC:9873

10. Learned State Counsel then refers to a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P.N. Shukla & others vs. Union of India & others, reported in AIR 2024 Supreme Court 501. Para 60 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

"60. Since during the interregnum, Respondent 4 had been unjustifiably paid salary in the higher pay scale, one option could be that whatever had been paid to him till date, be left as such and his pay could be directed to be re-fixed from a future date. However, having regard to the level of the post of Respondent 4 and the manner in which he was extended special treatment at every step and was granted higher pay scale, we do not propose to adopt that course as this is not a case of any bona fide error. It was a well-planned and deliberate infraction. We therefore direct recovery of the excess amount paid to Respondent 4, though in instalments and/or from the officer(s), who were directly involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to Respondent 4. Both should be made equally liable to reimburse the exchequer for the amount illegally disbursed to Respondent 4. The exchequer should not be made to suffer on that account and either of two shall have to make good that loss of undue benefit granted to Respondent 4. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms."

11. The judgment rendered in the case of Dr. P.N. Shukla & others vs. Union of India & others (supra) is distinguishable on fact. In that case, it was found that employee concerned was wrongly extended special treatment at every step and he was given higher pay-scale and non-practicing allowance, knowing fully well and he is not entitled to such benefit and the employee concerned was still continuing in service, therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted recovery of excess amount from him and/or from the Officers, who were responsible for granting undue benefit to the

2025:UHC:9873 employee concerned.

12. In the present case, there is no allegation that some undue favour was extended to petitioner deliberately by some Officer of the Education Department. In fact, according to respondents, it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the Authorities, which led to excess payment to petitioners. Since petitioners have retired from service, therefore, in view of law declared in the case of State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), the excess amount paid to petitioners cannot be recovered after their retirement.

13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents shall examine the matter and pass necessary order for refund of the amount recovered from the retiral dues of petitioners. However, the Competent Authority shall be at liberty to initiate enquiry for ascertaining circumstances under which excess payment was made to the petitioners and also to take necessary action against the concerned Officer, who is found responsible for deliberate excess payment to the petitioners.

________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

10.11.2025 Aswal

NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,

SINGH ASWAL serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531 726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.11.14 03:21:08 -08'00'