Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17127 (UTT)

NARENDRA PAL v. UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION

WPSS/2173/2025 · 2025-12-12

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:11079 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/ 2 1 7 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Ms. Nisha Bora, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Petitioner served as conductor in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and retired on 30.04.2022. According to him, after his retirement, a sum of Rs. 1,34,694/ - was recovered from the amount payable as Gratuity to him. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: - “I. To issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of certiorarified mandamus to declare the recovery of Rs 1,34,694/ - from the amount of gratuity of the petitioner after retirement by the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and malafide and further to direct the respondents forthwith remit the amount back to the petitioners which has been deducted by way of recovery, and also to pay I nterest of 18% to petitioners on the deducted amount or to mold the relief appropriately keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the petition.” 4. Learned counsel for the Corporation, however, submits that there is no order of recovery enclosed with the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in reply that without there being an order, recovery was made from the 2025:UHC:11079 amount payable as Gratuity to the petitioner. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is a representation made by petitioner to the Assistant General Manager (Rural), Dehradun. The said representation was made on 24.02.2024. 6. Since the representation made by the petitioner before the competent authority is still pending, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Assistant General Manager to take decision on the representation. The law declared by Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334 shall also be borne in mind while taking any decision. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 12.12.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131 bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D6 53D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.12.12 17:35:59 +05'30'