Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1641 (UTT)

PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. MANAGING DIRECTOR UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION AT DEHRADUN

WPSS/2391/2025 · 2026-01-03

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:96 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 2391/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Rajat Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate, for the respondents. (2) Petitioner retired from the post of Traffic Inspector from Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 31.5.2025. After his retirement, an order was passed against him on 2.6.2025, which provided for recovery of ₹8,04,699/- from the amount payable as gratuity. The reason assigned for making recovery from the petitioner is that excess amount was paid to petitioner while granting benefit of ACP. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the recovery order. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not responsible, in any manner, for the excess payment and excess payment, if any, was made to petitioner by the Corporation was as per its then prevailing policy. He 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 ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ employee cannot be recovered, if the concerned employee is not in any manner responsible for such excess payment. He relies upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022 and submits that this writ petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the judgment dated 4.4.2024, rendered in Special Appeal 2026:UHC:96 No. 245 of 2022. (4) Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Counsel for the respondents, concedes that petitioner retired from Group ‘C’ post. He also concedes that the issue involved in the present case is identical to the one decided in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2011. (5) In view of consensus between the parties, this writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 4.4.2024, rendered in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 3.1.2026 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=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.01.03 16:44:26 +05'30' 2026:UHC:96