2026:UHC:960 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 2083/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel, for the State. (2) Petitioner retired from the post of Senior Nursing Officer, Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand on 31.7.2024. Petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery order passed by Chief Medical Superintendent, Joint Hospital, Tanakpur. (3) As per the stand taken in para 6 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, 3, 5 and 6, petitioner was wrongly given excess amount, which is liable to be recovered from her. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to para 16 of the writ petition where it is stated that petitioner never practiced fraud or misrepresentation for getting any excess amount, therefore the recovery directed to be made from her is illegal and unsustainable. It is further contended that petitioner was not heard before passing the recovery order. Learned Counsel relied upon a judgment dated 4.4.2025, rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Others v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others. (5) Learned Sate Counsel concedes that petitioner did not practice any fraud or misrepresentation for obtaining the excess amount, which was paid to her. He, however, submits that petitioner was entitled to basic pay of ₹12,540 + Grade Pay of ₹4600, total ₹17,140/-, while by mistake, she was given basic pay of ₹13,860 + Grade Pay ₹4600, total ₹18,460/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006. (6) This Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2026:UHC:960 335 of 2023, after considering the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held as under: “14. Be that as it may. From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that excess amount, if paid to an employee, would be recoverable (i) only when the employee concerned is in any manner responsible for such excess payment, e.g. by playing fraud or by adopting other deceitful means; or (ii) where an employee has given an undertaking before grant of such monetary benefit to the effect that in case the amount paid to him is found to be not admissible or is found to be in excess of what is due to him, then he will refund such amount/excess amount. ” (7) Learned State Counsel submits that this writ petition may also be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. (8) Since the issue raised is identical to the one involved in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023, therefore, this writ petition is also decided in terms of the judgment dated 18.9.2025, rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023. Excess amount shall be recoverable from the petitioner (i) if she is in any manner responsible for such excess payment, e.g. by playing fraud or by adopting other deceitful means; or (ii) if petitioner gave undertaking, at the time of fixation of pay, to the effect that in case the amount paid to her is found to be in excess of what is due to her, then she will refund such excess amount. (9) Admitted dues, if any, payable to the petitioner shall be released within eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.2.2026 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=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C9195 7BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.02.16 17:13:21 +05'30' 2026:UHC:960