[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1200/2025 on 9 April, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:2567
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/1200/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned
counsel for respondent no. 2.
4. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent no. 2 is taken on record.
5. Petitioner retired from the post Junior
Assistant from Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam on
31.12.2024. Petitioner is aggrieved by the
document enclosed as Annexure 3 to the
writ petition, which is Bill No. 13 of 2025-
26. In the said document, it is mentioned
that a sum of ₹2,36,466/- shall be
recovered from the retiral dues of the
petitioner as excess payment was released
to him between September 2009 to
December 2024. Feeling aggrieved by
recovery of the aforesaid amount, petitioner
has approached this Court, seeking the
following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the impugned Leave
Encashment Bill No. 13/25-26 only to the extent
of illegal recovery i.e.f Rs. 236466/- (annexure as
Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition)
(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents not to
recover the amount of Rs. 236466/- from
petitioner's Leave Encashment Bill No. 13/25-26
and released actual amount i.e. Rs. 7374600/- in
favour of the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner
shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
(iii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to
forthwith release the outstanding retiral benefits
2026:UHC:2567
to the petitioner, details whereof is given herein
below:-
A. Gratuity = Rs. 1192950 (approx)
(sanctioned but not paid)
B. Leave Encashment = Rs. 737460/- (approx)
(300 days) (sanctioned but not paid)
C. 50% to 53% Arrears Dearness Allowance of
9/2025-26 = Rs. 8928
D. 50% to 53% Dearness Allowances Arrears of
10/2025-26 = Rs. 2169/-
Total Amount Rs. 19,41,507/-00 (Aprox)
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner neither practiced
fraud nor misrepresented facts for getting
extra amount released in his favour and
whatever amount was paid to him, was as
per the pay fixation order passed by the
Competent Authority. It is contended that in
view of the law declared by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq
Masih, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334,
petitioner is not liable for any recovery, as
he retired from a Group-C post.
7. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that
due to wrong fixation of pay, made in 2009,
excess payment was released to petitioner,
which deserves to be recovered. He,
however, concedes that petitioner has not
played any fraud upon the Department. He
however submits that petitioner has given
an undertaking after his retirement that
excess payment, if made to him, can be
recovered from him.
8. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that
undertaking, if any, given by employee after
retirement cannot be relied upon for making
recovery of excess payment released to him
while he was in service. He further submits
that the alleged undertaking was obtained
by the Departmental Authorities from the
petitioner on 06.02.2025.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that similar issue was dealt with by
this Court in WPSS No. 335 of 2023
2026:UHC:2567
(Surendra Dutt Gairola vs. State of
Uttarakhand & others) & other connected
matters. He submits that since the issue
involved in this writ petition is identical to
that case, therefore, the writ petition
deserves to be decided in terms of para 14
of the judgment.
10. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Since identical issue was dealt
with in that judgment, therefore, this writ
petition is decided in terms of judgment
dated 18.09.2025 rendered in WPSS No.
335 of 2023. The Competent Authority shall
ascertain as to whether the case of the
petitioner falls under any of the two
contingencies mentioned in para 14 of
judgment rendered in WPSS No. 335 of
2023 and thereafter pass necessary order
within four weeks from the date of
presentation of certified copy of this order. If
Competent Authority finds that petitioner's
case does not fall in any of the
contingencies, then the amount, ordered to
be recovered, shall be released in favour of
the petitioner, within two months thereafter.
All retiral dues, including pension shall also
be released in favour of the petitioner within
three months, if he does not fall in any of
the contingencies mentioned in para 14 of
the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 335 of
2023.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
09.04.2026
Aswal
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0,
cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2026.04.15 22:02:15 -07'00'
2026:UHC:2567
