DEVENDRA KAUR v. UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION
WPSS/980/2026 · 2026-04-16
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3293 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3293 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:2676 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s
order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPSS/980/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Kishore, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the respondents.
3. Petitioner retired from the post of Painter, Grade-I from Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 30.04.2020. She is challenging the recovery of `3,07,000/- made from her retiral dues, pursuant to orders dated 23.05.2025 and 28.05.2025.
4. It is contended that as Group-C employee, petitioner is not liable to recovery, in view of the law declared by Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334. It is further contended that petitioner did not practice fraud nor did she make misrepresentation of
facts for getting any extra amount released in her favour, therefore, the recovery made from the amount payable as Leave Encashment to her is unsustainable.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022 and submits that since the issue involved is identical, therefore, this writ
2026:UHC:2676 petition deserves to be decided in terms of that judgment.
6. Mr. Lalit Samant learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner had encroached upon land belonging to Uttarakhand Transport Corporation at Rudrapur Bus station.
7. Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has vacated the land, which she had earlier encroached and the amount of gratuity has already been released in favour of the petitioner.
8. Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the respondents was given time to get instructions. Today, on instructions, he submitted that petitioner has now removed all encroachment. He concedes that the issue involved is identical to the one decided in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022.
9. In view of consensus between the parties, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.04.2026 Navin
NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006d a82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643 AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.16 17:38:30 +05'30'