[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1361/2021 on 17 February, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:1030
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS No. 1359 of 2021
With
WPSS No. 2281 of 2022
WPSS No. 1360 of 2021
WPSS No. 1361 of 2021
WPSS No. 1362 of 2021
WPSS No. 1364 of 2021
WPSS No. 2282 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal & Mr.
Harendra Belwal, Advocates for the
petitioners.
2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Petitioners were initially engaged as
daily wager in State Public Works
Department between the years 1985 to
1996. Their status was subsequently
upgraded to work-charged employee on
different dates, and ultimately their
services were regularised on different
dates between the years 2006 to 2016.
Several years after their retirement,
orders were passed against them for
recovery of the amount allegedly paid in
excess of what was due to them. Thus,
feeling aggrieved they have approached
this Court, challenging the recovery
order.
4. Since common questions of fact and
law are involved in these petitions,
therefore, these petitions are clubbed
together and decided by this common
judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS
No. 1359 of 2021 alone are being
considered and discussed.
2026:UHC:1030
5. The reliefs sought in WPSS No.
1359 of 2021 are extracted below for
ready reference:-
(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari as to quash order dated 13th October
2020 passed by Executive Engineer Disbursing
Officer PWD Roorkee respondent No. 3 to the
extent they have determined the pension and
gratuity at pay scale of Rs. 27,100.00 and
recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,43,340.00 from
the gratuity.
(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondents to
determine the pension and gratuity at the basic
pay scale of Rs. 32000 (last pay scale 29600
along with benefit of two ACP equal to Rs.
32000).
(iii) Issue a writ order direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to return
the amount of Rs. 1,43,034.00 to the petitioner
along with a penal interest of Rs. 18% per
annum.
6. Learned counsels for the petitioners
submit that petitioners were not in any
manner instrumental in getting the
excess amount released in their favour.
They submit that neither any fraud was
played by petitioners nor did they make
any misrepresentation of fact for which
they could be held liable. They rely upon
a judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported as
(2015) 4 SCC 334.
7. Learned State Counsel, however,
submits that petitioners were given
benefit of pension in view of judgment
of 2011, Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. &
others; however, the pay of the
petitioners was wrongly fixed at a higher
level, due to which excess payment was
made to them. He submits that since the
2026:UHC:1030
amount paid to them is much in excess
of what was due to them, therefore, they
are not entitled to retain that amount
and State Government has rightly passed
the order of recovery against the
petitioners. He, however, concedes that
petitioners did not practice any fraud for
getting that excess payment released in
their favour.
8. Learned State Counsel relies upon a
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of High Court of Punjab
& Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh,
reported as (2016) 14 SCC 267. He also
relies upon a judgment dated
18.09.2025 rendered by this Court in
WPSS No. 335 of 2023 (Surendra Dutt
Gairola v. State of Uttarakhand).
9. Having regard to the fact and
circumstances of the case, and
especially, the fact that petitioners were
not responsible in any manner for
release of the excess amount to them,
the writ petition is decided in terms of
the judgment rendered by this Court in
WPSS No. 335 of 2023.
10. Petitioners are permitted to make
representation(s) regarding their
grievances to the Competent Authority. If
they make representation within ten
days from today, decision thereupon
shall be taken, as per law, within four
months thereafter. The amount
recovered from the dues of the
petitioners shall be refunded to them
within four months, unless such recovery
was authorised by law.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
17.02.2026
Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH 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,
ASWAL
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A585317
26FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2026.02.17 05:43:43 -08'00'
2026:UHC:1030
