2026:UHC:1852 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/247/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector from Civil Police Uttarakhand on 31.07.2023. After his retirement an order was passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar on 18.01.2024 providing for recovery of ₹27,17,352/-. Thus, feeling aggrieved by order dated 18.01.2024, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not instrumental in getting any excess payment released in his favour, therefore, the amount, if any, paid in excess can’t be recovered from him. He relies 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, for contending that after retirement recovery is not permissible from a retired employee. 5. Learned State Counsel, however, refers to averments made in para 18 of the counter affidavit filed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar for contending that since petitioner has given his consent for recovery of excess amount paid to him from his pension, 2026:UHC:1852 therefore, petitioner cannot raise any grievance against the order of recovery passed by Senior Superintendent of Police. Learned State Counsel also refers to the document enclosed as Annexure 9 to the counter affidavit, which is a handwritten letter allegedly submitted by the petitioner, whereby petitioner gave his consent for making recovery from his pension. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner’s pay was wrongly fixed while granting benefit of 3rd ACP, therefore, the excess payment released in favour of petitioner needs to be recovered and the SSP has merely passed order for recovery of the excess amount paid to him. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 335 of 2023 (Surendra Dutt Gairola vs. State of Uttarakhand & others) & other connected matters. He submits that since the issue involved in this writ petition is identical to that judgment, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the said judgment. 8. Learned State Counsel concedes that the issue involved in this petition is identical to the one decided in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. 9. In view of consensus between the parties, the writ petition is decided in terms of judgment dated 18.09.2025 rendered in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar shall ascertain as to whether the case of the petitioner falls under any of the two contingencies provided in 2026:UHC:1852 para 14 of judgment rendered in WPSS No. 335 of 2023 and pass necessary order within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. If SSP, Haridwar finds that petitioner does not fall in any of the contingencies, then the amount, ordered to be recovered, shall be released in favour of the petitioner, within six weeks thereafter. All retiral dues, including pension shall also be released in favour of the petitioner, if he does not fall in any of the contingencies. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 18.03.2026 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=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d 1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F46 10C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.03.18 07:39:42 -07'00'