2026:UHC:3535 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 5 0 1 / 2 0 2 6 W PSS 5 1 8 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Kirti Sharan Agarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1 and 2. (2) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 501 of 2026 alone are being considered and discussed here. (3) Petitioner was employed as Junior Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Roorkee and retired on 30.4.2025. A week before his retirement, an order was passed on 23.4.2025 asking him to refund a sum of ₹19,73,338/-, which was wrongly paid to him. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that retiral dues have not been released to petitioner on the strength of impugned order dated 23.4.2025, as petitioner was not in a position to refund the amount indicated in the said order. He submits that recovery is being made from the petitioner only on the ground that his pay was fixed at a wrong level, due to which excess amount was paid to him. He further submits that petitioner neither played fraud on the authority nor he was in any manner instrumental in getting the excess amount released in his favour, therefore he is not liable to refund the amount indicated in the impugned order. He relies upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334. He also relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in 2026:UHC:3535 Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 335 of 2023. (5) Learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that at the time of pay fixation, pay of the petitioner was fixed at higher level w.e.f. 1.1.2006, due to which excess amount was paid to him as salary throughout his service career and that excess amount deserves to be recovered from the petitioner. He, however, concedes that petitioner did not practice any fraud upon Nagar Nigam and he was not instrumental in getting excess amount released in his favour. He fairly concedes that similar issue has been dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 335 of 2023 and he has no objection if writ petitions are decided in terms of the judgment rendered in that writ petition. (6) Accordingly, writ petitions are decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 335 of 2023. Competent authority shall examine whether the case of petitioners 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 their case does not fall under either of the two contingencies, then entire retiral dues, shall be released in their favour within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Nagar Nigam, however, shall be at liberty to adopt such legal recourse as is permissible in law. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 8 .5 .2 0 2 6 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=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d4625 03, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C6 7F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.05.08 15:35:35 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3535