2025:UHC:4218 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SS) No. 344 of 2021 20th May, 2025 Devendra Pal Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarkhand and others. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. According to the petitioner, he was serving on the post of Regional Youth Welfare Officer and he was superannuated from the said post on 30.06.2019 after attaining the age of superannuation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 18.06.1988 on the post of Regional Youth Welfare Officer; that, his services were regularized on the said post vide order dated 17.08.1991 with immediate effect; that, the petitioner was granted benefit of selection grade pay after completion of 10 years service by counting his ad hoc services; that, after his retirement, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2021 issued by respondent no.3/Zila Yuva Kalyan Even Prantiya Rakshak Dal, Almora, whereby his pay has 2025:UHC:4218 2 been recalculated and the benefit, which was of selection grade and promotional pay scale granted earlier to the petitioner, has been withdrawn without giving any opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioner. Pursuant to this recalculation, an amount Rs.7,01,713/- is directed to be recovered from the pension of the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner was wrongly given benefit of the selection grade by taking into account of the services rendered by him in ad hoc capacity and, after detecting this mistake, the same was rectified. He further submits that it is a case of rectification of mistake and, after exclusion of the service rendered by the petitioner in ad hoc capacity, his pay has been recalculated and re-fixed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that since the petitioner has retired on 30.06.2019, therefore, the respondents could not have ordered for recovery of amount from his gratuity. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Hon’ble Court has laid down guidelines for recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service). Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue 2025:UHC:4218 3 of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has retired from Group-‘C’ Post. In light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others (supra), this Court of the view that no recovery could have been made from the retiral dues of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State would submit that the amount of 2025:UHC:4218 4 recovery has already been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner. Insofar as, issue regarding the recalculation and re-fixation of salary of the petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that vires of the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018 is subjudice before this Court. The petitioner would be at liberty to agitate the matter of re-fixation of his salary after the issue regarding vires of the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018 is decided by the Court. 7. Be that as it may, since no recovery could have been made from the retiral dues of the petitioner as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, therefore, the amount recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner shall be returned back to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 20.05.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c582 0, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14 A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.05.23 12:16:30 +05'30'