2025:UHC:10092 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 1 8 5 0 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J 1. Mr. Deepak Pethshali, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. 3. Petitioner retired from the post of Blacksmith from Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 30.11.2018. After his retirement, an order was passed by Assistant General Manager, Roorkee Depot on 07.06.2020, wherein it is provided that in place of ₹6,62,049/-, petitioner would be paid only ₹5,79,293/-, as Gratuity. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Petitioner contends that by the impugned order, recovery of ₹82,756/- has been made from the amount payable as Gratuity to him; since the said order is passed after his retirement, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, the impugned order is unsustainable, as recovery cannot be made from a Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ employee, after his retirement. 5. Ms. Puja Joshi, Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Kathgodam is present in Court today, 2025:UHC:10092 along with relevant record. She submits that petitioner was wrongly given Grade Pay of ₹4200/- and at the time of retirement also, he was getting salary in the same Grade Pay, but later it was found that Grade Pay of ₹4200/- was wrongly given to him and he was actually entitled to Grade Pay of ₹2800/-. Thus, she submits that excess amount paid to petitioner, because of the said mistake, was ordered to be recovered, pursuant to instructions issued by Headquarter, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 18.11.2019. 6. From the statement made by Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Kathgodam, it is apparent that the amount, which was allegedly paid in excess to petitioner during his service career, is being sought to be recovered from him, after his retirement. Such recovery is impermissible in view of law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.06.2020 is quashed and set aside. The amount recovered from the petitioner’s Gratuity shall be refunded to him, within six weeks from today. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J) 14.11.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL 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, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.11.14 02:53:54 -08'00' 2025:UHC:10092