2025:UHC:5627-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 266 of 2020 Jagdish Chandra Joshi … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents Mr. Piyush Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional CSC, for the State. With Writ Petition Service Bench No. 163 of 2020 State of Uttarakhand & Others … Petitioners Versus Jagdish Chandra Joshi … Respondent Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional CSC, for the State. Mr. Piyush Tiwari, Advocate, for the respondent. J U D G M E N T Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. Jagdish Chandra Joshi approached Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 31/NB/DB/2018, in which he sought the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing of the impugned order 22nd November 2017 passed by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Pithoragarh directing for recovery of Rs.7,91,110.00/- from petitioner with deduction of Rs. 12000 per month 2025:UHC:5627-DB 2 from the salary of the petitioner and remaining amount to be deducted from Gratuity of the petitioner to be paid after his retirement, being illegally and arbitrary. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to deduct illegal recovery of Rs. 7,91,110/- on account of alleged excess pay and allowance as per the impugned order No. 678/10/C/Vasuli/2017 & 18 dated 22 Nov. 2017 issued by the Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Pithoragarh (Respondent No. 4) under whom the petitioner (Class III employee) has been serving for about 34 years of service and who is retiring next year i.e. 31.12.2018. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the pay and allowances already deducted from the salary of the petitioner under the Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2017 prior to the issue of the said impugned order dated 22.11.2017, which has been sought to be quashed for being wrongful order under the grounds as stated above.” 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.8.2019, the aforesaid claim petition was partly allowed; the order of recovery dated 22.11.2017, as amended on 7.5.2018, was set aside, however petitioner’s prayer for granting Grade Pay of ₹5400 was disallowed. Operative portion of the judgment rendered by Tribunal is extracted below: “The claim petition is partly allowed. The impugned recovery order dated 22.11.2017 and the amended order for recovery dated 07.05.2018 are hereby set aside. 2025:UHC:5627-DB 3 The prayer of the petitioner for granting him the grade pay of Rs. 5400 is not allowed. The final salary of the petitioner and his pensionary benefits shall be decided on the basis of his last admissible salary, as per the rules within a period of four months from the date of this order. No order as costs.” 3. Jagdish Chandra Joshi as well as the State, both have challenged the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal by filing separate writ petition. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in both the writ petitions, these are being heard and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 266 of 2020 alone are being considered and discussed here. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as Amin in Minor Irrigation Department of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh on 15.2.1984. He was given time scale of pay of ₹3200-85-4900, admissible for next higher post, w.e.f. 15.2.1998. Thereafter petitioner was given second time scale of pay of ₹5200-20200 (Grade Pay ₹2800) w.e.f. 15.2.2008, after completing 24 years of service. Ultimately, petitioner was granted pay scale of ₹9300-34800 (Grade Pay ₹4200) as 3rd ACP w.e.f. 15.2.2010. Pursuant to a policy decision taken by the State Government, services of the petitioner was subsequently merged in the post of Junior Clerk in a different department, namely, Irrigation Department and the post of Junior Clerk was redesignated as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 16.1.2013. Petitioner was granted pay 2025:UHC:5627-DB 4 scale of ₹9300-34800 (Grade Pay ₹4600) w.e.f. 6.11.2013 as upgraded pay scale, which was admissible for the post of Deputy Revenue Officer. The said pay scale admissible for the post of Deputy Revenue Officer was again upgraded as ₹15600-39100 (Grade Pay ₹5400) w.e.f. 11.2.2014. Subsequently, the benefit of upgraded pay scale of Deputy Revenue Officer was withdrawn from the petitioner and an order was also passed for recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to said pay scale. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal rejected petitioner’s prayer for grant of Grade Pay of ₹5400 by holding that petitioner was wrongly given the pay scale admissible for the post of Deputy Revenue Officer, however authorities were restrained from recovering the excess amount paid to the petitioner by applying the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Mashih & Others, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334. 6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Although petitioner was earlier serving in Revenue Cadre in Minor Irrigation Department, however his services were subsequently merged in ministerial cadre in a different department, namely, Irrigation Department. Petitioner was given benefit of 3rd ACP while serving as Amin, however, soon thereafter his post was merged in the ministerial cadre and he was absorbed on the post of Junior Clerk, which was subsequently redesignated as Junior Assistant. Thus upon absorption on the post of Junior Clerk, 2025:UHC:5627-DB 5 petitioner was not entitled to any further upgradation in pay scale. In other words, he was not entitled to the pay scale admissible for the post of Deputy Revenue Officer. 7. Since the benefit of upgradation of pay scale, which was meant for Deputy Revenue Officer, was wrongly given to the petitioner, therefore, the competent authority was justified in withdrawing the said benefit. Although the competent authority was justified in passing order for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner, however, petitioner was given protection against recovery, as he was serving on a Group ‘C’ post and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Mashih & Others, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334, has held that in such circumstances, no recovery can be made from Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, 8. Thus we concur with the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal. There is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petitions by directing the Head of Irrigation Department to release all retiral dues, if already not released, to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Any delay beyond six weeks in releasing the outstanding retiral dues shall entitle petitioner to simple interest @ 6 per cent per annum. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 2.7.2025 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=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d46 2503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58 C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09 13:07:14 +05'30' 2025:UHC:5627-DB 6