WPSS/1878/2024
2026 Latest Caselaw 3041 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSS/1878/2024 on 16 April, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                 2026:UHC:2711
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPSS/1878/2024
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate for respondent no. 5.

4. Petitioner was an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, who retired on 31.03.2022 from the post of Clerk from a school managed by Nagar Palika Parishad, namely, K.L. Sah Nagar Palika Balika Inter College, Aishdale, Nainital. After his retirement, an order was passed on 28.05.2024 by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad providing for recovery of `4,58,308/- from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that due to mistake, pay of the petitioner was fixed at a higher level, which resulted in payment of excess amount to him, which is now sought to be recovered from him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not played any fraud upon the municipal authorities nor he misrepresented the facts and whatever amount was released to the petitioner, was as per the pay fixation made by the competent authority. He submits that in view of law declared by Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported as (2015) 2026:UHC:2711

4 SCC 334, petitioner is not liable to any recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023 (Surendra Dutt Gairola v. State of Uttarakhand and others).

6. Mr. Bhupendra Bisht as well as learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents concede that identical issue was decided in that judgment. They, therefore, submit that they have no objection, if the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023.

7. In view of the consensus between the parties, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. The Municipal Authorities shall be at liberty to make recovery, if either of the two conditions mentioned in paragraph no. 14 of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023, are fulfilled. The competent authority shall examine as to whether petitioner's case falls in any of the two contingencies mentioned in the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023 and if it is found that his case does not fall in any of the two contingencies, then his pending retiral dues shall be released, after adjusting the amount already paid, within two months from date of presentation of certified copy of this order before the competent authority.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.04.2026 Navin

NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21 CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.16 18:23:39 +05'30'