Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3249 (UTT)

ASHOK KUMAR KAMBOJ v. UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION

WPSS/1070/2026 · 2026-04-20

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:2888 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1070/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the respondents. 2. Petitioner retired from the post of Junior Clerk from Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 30.06.2016. By means of this writ petition, he has sought a direction to the competent authority to release a sum of Rs. 3,59,100/-, which allegedly was recovered by the authorities from the amount payable as gratuity to him. 3. It is alleged that pursuant to some order issued by Headquarter of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation in 2020, the aforementioned amount was recovered from his gratuity, and that order was subsequently quashed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022. 4. He submits that the issue involved is covered by judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022, therefore, respondents be directed to release the amount which was illegally recovered from petitioner’s gratuity. 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation, however, disputes the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner. He submits that order of recovery if passed against petitioner, is not enclosed with the writ petition, therefore he cannot make any 2026:UHC:2888 statement, as to whether any amount was recovered from petitioner or not. 6. He, however, submits that if petitioner has reasons to believe that any amount was recovered from his gratuity, then he is free to approach the competent authority by making representation. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting petitioner to make fresh representation for refund of the amount allegedly recovered from him. Petitioner shall indicate the amount which according to him was payable and the amount which was actually paid, in his representation If he makes such representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by the competent authority, as per law, within four months thereafter. 8. It shall be open to the petitioner to claim interest on delayed payment of recovered amount. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.04.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA 43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.21 18:36:10 +05'30' 2026:UHC:2888