2026:UHC:4010 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 5 2 6 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Vinod Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner served as Headmistress in Government Primary School, Bahadrabad, Haridwar, who retired on 31.03.2020. She is challenging an order issued by Deputy Education Officer, Bahadrabad, Haridwar, whereby a sum of `31,805/ - was ordered to be recovered from her gratuity. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs: - “a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the office order undated (contained as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) whereby an order of recovery of Rs. 31,805/ - amount has been made from the retirement dues of the petitioner. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authority to pay the remaining deducted amount of Rs. 31,805/ - which were deducted from the retirement dues of the petitioner with the statutory bank interest and as per the provision of 7A of gratuity act.” 4. A counter affidavit is filed by Mr. Bhanu Pratap Sharma on behalf of respondent no. 6. Para 4 of the said counter affidavit is extracted below: - 2026:UHC:4010 “4. That the content of para no. 6 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. It is submitted that in response to the letter no. Vidhi/ Das-07/ 21/ 2022 (01)/ 3203-06/ 2025- 26 dated 11.08.2025 of the Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, a discrepancy was found between the pay fixations of the petitioner and the pay slips taken out from I ntegrated Finance Management System (IFMS) (from April 2009 to March 2020), in which prima facie, Mrs. Shimla Devi was found to be receiving Rs.31805.00 (Rupees thirty one thousand eight hundred and five only) more salary as compared to the pay fixations. The recovery of which has been made from her gratuity, which is completely as per the rules. A true/ correct typed version/ photocopy of the letter dated 11.08.2025 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no. CA-1 to this affidavit.” 5. Learned State Counsel submits that since excess payment was made to the petitioner due to mistake, therefore, such excess payment is liable to be recovered. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that as Group-C employee of the State Government, petitioner is not liable for any recovery after her retirement. He submits that even otherwise also, there is no allegation that petitioner practiced fraud or misrepresented facts before the concerned authority for getting excess payment released in her favour, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to make any recovery from the gratuity of the petitioner. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 335 of 2023 and other connected petitions. 7. Learned State Counsel concedes that there is no allegation that petitioner practiced fraud upon the authority and 2026:UHC:4010 further that petitioner also did not make any misrepresentation for getting extra money released in her favour. He concedes that facts of the present case are similar to the facts involved in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. Impugned order, which, is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, is set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount if recovered from gratuity payable to the petitioner on the strength of impugned order, within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 21.05.2026 Navin