2025:UHC:11388 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 2 2 3 6 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Rajat Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate, for the respondents. (2) Petitioner was appointed as Cleaner in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1979 and he retired as Senior Clerk from Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. Two orders were passed against him providing for recovery of certain amount from his retiral dues. First order was passed on 27.12.2021 providing for recovery of ₹5,31,827/- from the amount payable as leave encashment to the petitioner and thereafter another order was passed on 24.5.2022 providing for recovery of ₹1,82,020/- from the amount payable as gratuity. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging these two orders. Petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus directing the authorities to refund the amount recovered from his retiral dues, pursuant to these two orders. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334, excess amount paid to any Group ‘D’ or Group ‘C’ employee cannot be recovered, if the concerned employee is not in any manner responsible for such excess payment. He also relies upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2025:UHC:11388 2022. (4) Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that petitioner was sleeping over the matter and he did not approach this Court for more than three years, therefore belated challenge to the impugned orders cannot be entertained, as the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. (5) Without going into the issues raised by learned Counsel for the respondents, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is perm itted to make representation to the competent authority against the two orders, impugned in this writ petition. It shall be open for the petitioner to draw attention of the competent authority to the law of the land. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by providing that if petitioner makes representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within four months thereafter. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 9 .1 2 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d 462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA 58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.12.22 11:31:10 +05'30' 2025:UHC:11388