2026:UHC:3009 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 1580/2022 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy AG, for the State. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, for Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. (2) Petitioner, who was an employee of Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, retired on 30.4.2019. After his retirement, two orders were passed. First order was passed by Divisional Manager, Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation on 24.7.2019 and thereafter on 25.7.2019, another order was passed by Divisional Logging Manager, Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. Conjoint reading of these two orders reveals that petitioner’s pay was re-fixed w.e.f. June 2014 and in place of Grade Pay of ₹4200, which was being paid to petitioner earlier, his Grade Pay was re-fixed to ₹2800 and the amount alleged to have been paid in excess to petitioner, amounting to ₹2,40,732, was directed to be recovered from the gratuity payable to petitioner. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged these two orders, issued on 24.7.2019 and 25.7.2019. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a Group ‘C’ employee at the time of his retirement and the impugned orders were passed much after his retirement from service and, therefore, recovery from the petitioner is impermissible not only on merits but also in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334. It is further contended that petitioner was not instrumental in any manner whatsoever in getting extra 2026:UHC:3009 amount released in his favour and whatever amount was paid to him was as per the pay fixation made by the competent authority. Thus it is contended that petitioner cannot be penalised without any fault of his. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. He submits that this writ petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the said judgment. (4) Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, and Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned State Counsel, submit that they have no objection if the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. (5) In view of consensus between the parties, writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. Competent authority in Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation shall examine whether the case of petitioner is covered by any of the two contingencies mentioned in para 14 of judgment dated 18.9.2025, rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023, and if it is found that petitioner’s case is not covered under either of the two contingencies, then all his retiral dues including the amount recovered from him shall be released in his favour within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 23.4.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3a eab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB58805 2DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.04.24 10:48:42 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3009