2026:UHC:2882 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1043/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Petitioner’s husband was employed as Senior Clerk, who retired on 30.06.2017. Husband of the petitioner passed away on 20.09.2021. On 01.06.2022, two orders were passed by Regional Manager (Operation), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Tankapur, which are on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. The first order is numbered as 611, in which, it is mentioned that, vide order dated 03.07.2017, a sum of `10,00,000/- was sanctioned as Gratuity to petitioner’s husband, however, the amount payable as Gratuity to petitioner’s husband has been reduced vide order dated 11.11.2020 to `9,27,652/-. By the subsequent order, which is numbered as 612, it is mentioned that a sum of `4,28,273/- has been recovered from the amount payable as Leave Encashment to petitioner’s husband. Thus feeling aggrieved by these two orders, petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s husband was serving as Group-C employee and in view of law declared by Apex Court in 2026:UHC:2882 State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported as (2015), such recovery is not permissible from Group-C employees, after their retirement. It is further submitted that amount, if any, paid in excess to the petitioner, was pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority and petitioner was not instrumental in any manner whatsoever, for release of such extra amount, and in that view of the matter also, no recovery can be made from the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court, in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022, for contending that Division Bench has also held that no recovery can be made from retired employees. 7. Mr. Ashish, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation was given time to get instructions in the matter. On instructions, he submits that the issue is identical to the one decided by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022. 8. In view of the consensus between learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 04.04.2024, rendered in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.04.2026 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=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB2 1CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.20 19:18:55 +05'30'