2026:UHC:3095 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 642/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bisht, Brief Holder, for the State. (2) Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in the Forest Department and he retired as Forester from Tehri Dam Forest Division I, New Tehri on 31.1.2022. According to him, an order was passed by respondent no. 5 providing for recovery of ₹5,98,785 from his gratuity, which is challenged in this writ petition. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner retired from a Group ‘C’ post, therefore no recovery can be made from his retiral dues 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 never paid any excess amount and excess payment, if any, was pursuant to orders passed by the competent authority and petitioner was not instrumental in any manner whatsoever in getting such excess amount released in his favour. It is further contended that Additional Director, Treasury is not competent to make recovery from the retiral dues of the petitioner and recovery order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. (4) Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions as to whether the recovery was made by Additional Director, 2026:UHC:3095 Treasury or it was ordered by a departmental authority. Mr. Manish Bisht, learned State Counsel, has produced in Court a letter, issued by concerned Divisional Forest Officer to Chief Treasury Officer, New Tehri on 2.5.2022. In the third page of that document, Divisional Forest Officer has referred to Departmental Recovery amounting to ₹5,98,785 under the caption ‘Pension Calculation’. Learned State Counsel, by referring to para 5 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3, submits that at the time of pay fixation, after implementation of 6th Pay Commission report, petitioner’s pay was fixed at a higher level than what he was entitled to and because of that mistake, excess amount was being paid to petitioner till his retirement. He thus submits that excess amount paid to the petitioner deserves to be recovered. (5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023 for contending that since petitioner is not responsible for any excess payment, therefore, the amount paid to him, even though in excess, cannot be recovered. He submits that this writ petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. (6) Learned State Counsel concedes that the issue involved is identical and he has no objection if the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. (7) Accordingly, writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. 2026:UHC:3095 Competent authority 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 does not fall under either of the two contingencies, then all his retiral dues, including the amount recovered from his gratuity, shall be released in his favour within eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.4.2026 Pr 2026:UHC:3095