WPSS/723/2026
2026 Latest Caselaw 1832 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSS/723/2026 on 12 March, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                 2026:UHC:1638
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPSS/723/2026
                               With
                               WPSS/728/2026
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
                               1.

Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the 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. 723 of 2026 alone are being considered and discussed.

4. Petitioner is serving as Senior Nursing Officer in B.D. Pandey Hospital, Nainital. She is aggrieved by the communication dated 28.01.2026 issued by Principal Medical Superintendent of the said hospital, whereby she was asked to inform the amount which shall be deducted from her salary each month towards recovery of excess payment made to her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of there being any order for recovery, a sum of ₹10,000/- per month is being deducted from petitioner's salary w.e.f. January 2026.

6. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, submits that due to wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner, excess 2026:UHC:1638

amount to the tune of ₹7,70,348/- was paid to petitioner, which has to be recovered from her. He concedes that a sum of ₹10,000/- per month is being recovered from petitioner's salary w.e.f. January 2026.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing while passing the recovery order, therefore, the recovery made from her salary is illegal. He relies upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo & others vs District Judge, Cuttack & others reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724 in support of the said contention.

8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Since recovery of the amount from petitioners' salary entails civil consequences to the petitioners, therefore, they were entitled to opportunity of hearing before any order of recovery is passed against them. Since that was not done in the present case, therefore, order of recovery passed against them is clearly unsustainable.

9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The recovery made from the salary of the petitioners' is declared to be illegal; however, the Competent Authority shall be at liberty to pass fresh order but only after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to them. No recovery shall be made from the petitioners till final order is passed in terms of this judgment.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 12.03.2026 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=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.03.12 06:39:23 -07'00' 2026:UHC:1638