2026:UHC:1030 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No. 1359 of 2021 With WPSS No. 2281 of 2022 WPSS No. 1360 of 2021 WPSS No. 1361 of 2021 WPSS No. 1362 of 2021 WPSS No. 1364 of 2021 WPSS No. 2282 of 2022 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal & Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocates for the petitioners. 2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioners were initially engaged as daily wager in State Public Works Department between the years 1985 to 1996. Their status was subsequently upgraded to work-charged employee on different dates, and ultimately their services were regularised on different dates between the years 2006 to 2016. Several years after their retirement, orders were passed against them for recovery of the amount allegedly paid in excess of what was due to them. Thus, feeling aggrieved they have approached this Court, challenging the recovery order. 4. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 1359 of 2021 alone are being considered and discussed. 2026:UHC:1030 5. The reliefs sought in WPSS No. 1359 of 2021 are extracted below for ready reference:- (i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari as to quash order dated 13th October 2020 passed by Executive Engineer Disbursing Officer PWD Roorkee respondent No. 3 to the extent they have determined the pension and gratuity at pay scale of Rs. 27,100.00 and recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,43,340.00 from the gratuity. (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to determine the pension and gratuity at the basic pay scale of Rs. 32000 (last pay scale 29600 along with benefit of two ACP equal to Rs. 32000). (iii) Issue a writ order direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to return the amount of Rs. 1,43,034.00 to the petitioner along with a penal interest of Rs. 18% per annum. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that petitioners were not in any manner instrumental in getting the excess amount released in their favour. They submit that neither any fraud was played by petitioners nor did they make any misrepresentation of fact for which they could be held liable. They rely upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that petitioners were given benefit of pension in view of judgment rendered by Apex Court in SLP No. 437 of 2011, Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. & others; however, the pay of the petitioners was wrongly fixed at a higher level, due to which excess payment was made to them. He submits that since the 2026:UHC:1030 amount paid to them is much in excess of what was due to them, therefore, they are not entitled to retain that amount and State Government has rightly passed the order of recovery against the petitioners. He, however, concedes that petitioners did not practice any fraud for getting that excess payment released in their favour. 8. Learned State Counsel relies upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh, reported as (2016) 14 SCC 267. He also relies upon a judgment dated 18.09.2025 rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 335 of 2023 (Surendra Dutt Gairola v. State of Uttarakhand). 9. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, and especially, the fact that petitioners were not responsible in any manner for release of the excess amount to them, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. 10. Petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) regarding their grievances to the Competent Authority. If they make representation within ten days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within four months thereafter. The amount recovered from the dues of the petitioners shall be refunded to them within four months, unless such recovery was authorised by law. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 17.02.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A585317 26FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.02.17 05:43:43 -08'00' 2026:UHC:1030