No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSS No. 54 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. In the present case, petitioner is a retired Government Employee. She retired from the post of Tutor from State College of Nursing, Chandernagar, Dehradun. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby, an amount of Rs. 12,27,767/- is directed to be recovered from her retiral dues on the ground that her salary has wrongly been fixed from 01.01.2006. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned recovery has been effected without issuing any show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the petitioner never obtained any excess payment by way of misrepresentation or fraud, and whatever payment was made to her, was entirely due to the acts of the department itself. 6. It is further argued that recovery from retiral dues of a retired employee, particularly when the employee belongs to Class III or Class IV category and is not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation, is impermissible in law. Learned counsel would submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, as well as by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 04.04.2024 in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022, Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena and connected matters. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that the recovery has been affected on the ground that excess salary was paid to the petitioner, and therefore, the department was justified in making the recovery. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already retired from service, and the recovery in question has been made from her retiral dues. It is also not the case of the respondents that the excess payment was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud or making any misrepresentation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) vs. State of Punjab (supra) has categorically held that recovery of excess payment is impermissible in law in certain situations, including (i) recovery from retired employees or employees who are on the verge of retirement, and (ii) recovery where the excess payment was not the result of any misconduct or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. The Division Bench of this Court in Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena (supra) has reiterated the said legal position and has clearly held that recovery from retiral benefits of retired employees of the Corporation is unsustainable in law, when the employee is not at fault. 10. In the present case, the recovery has been affected post-retirement, without issuing any notice or granting any opportunity of hearing, and solely due to an alleged error on the part of the department. Such recovery is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of settled principles of law. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.06.2025 insofar as it relates to the recovery/deduction of Rs. 12,27,767/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 12. The respondents are directed to refund/pay the recovered amount to the petitioner in entirety within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra J.) 08.01.2026 Ujjwal