2026:UHC:1631 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 1 4 1 0 / 2 0 2 5 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Petitioner’s husband was serving as Collection Amin in Revenue Department of the State, who died while in service on 13.06.2023. After death of her husband, an order was passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhari (Nainital) on 22.08.2025, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 11,59,228/-, through treasury challan in her office and only then the claim of petitioner for family pension and release of other monitory dues shall be processed. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court seeking following reliefs: I. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and quash the impugned order dated 22-08-2025 passed by the respondents (contained as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition), whereby the petitioner is being forced to deposit Rs. 11,59,228/-. Π. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the family pension to the petitioner alongwith interest which the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. 3. Learned State counsel refers to para 5 of the counter affidavit, filed by Ms. Monika, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhari and submits that at the time of pay fixation upon grant of ACP, pay of petitioner’s husband was wrongly fixed at a higher 2026:UHC:1631 level and the excess amount paid to him as salary is sought to be recovered. 4. Learned State Counsel, however, concedes that there is no allegation that petitioner’s husband was in any manner instrumental in getting the excess amount released in his favour as salary. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar controversy has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 335 of 2023. He thus submits that present writ petition deserves to be decided in terms of para 14 and 15 of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (SS) No. 335 of 2023. 6. Learned State Counsel fairly submits that since the issue involved in this petition is identical to the one decided in Writ Petition (SS) No. 335 of 2023, therefore, he has no objection if writ petition is decided in terms of above referred judgement. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is decided in terms of judgment dated 18.09.2025 rendered in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 is quashed. Respondents are directed to release all pending dues of the petitioner, including family pension within six weeks. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 11.03.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.03.12 17:57:22 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1631