2026:UHC:2210 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/924/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. B.S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Ms. Shakshi Phartiyal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent- Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam. 4. Petitioner was employed as Pump Operator in Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam, who retired from service on 31.10.2023. A few days before his retirement, an order was passed by Executive Engineer concerned providing for recovery of ₹1,34,490/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the order of recovery passed by Executive Engineer, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Katariya, Executive Engineer, Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that due to incorrect fixation of pay excess payment was made to the petitioner, which has to be recovered from him. Para 15 of the counter affidavit is reproduced below:- “15. That the contents of the para 4 of the writ petition are incorrect and misconceived, hence denied. This excess payment was made by the respondent no. 3 due to incorrect pay fixation in the pay scale of 5200-20200 with grade pay ₹2000/- from the date of 01.01.2006. 2026:UHC:2210 Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam vide its Letter no. 1109/(123)/16 dated 23.3.23 outlines the revised pay fixation and salary regularization for petitioner based on his service milestones. A copy of Letter no. 1109/(1323)/16 dated 23.3.3 regarding Revised pay fixation and salary regularization of petitioner is annexed as Annexure CA-2 of this counter affidavit.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation that petitioner practiced fraud or was instrumental in any manner in getting the excess payment released in his favour. He, therefore, submits that no recovery can be made from petitioner for a mistake committed by Department. He relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 335 of 2023 and submits that the writ petition deserves to be decided in terms of the said judgment. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts in the present case are identical to the one, decided in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is decided in terms of judgment dated 18.09.2025 rendered in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 27.03.2026 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=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.03.30 21:16:32 -07'00' 2026:UHC:2210