2026:UHC:4228 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1201/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State. Ms. Kanishka Rautela, Advocate holding brief of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent. 2. Petitioner served as ‘work agent’ in Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam and retired on 31.10.2024. After his retirement, an order was passed providing for recovery of Rs. 2,33,182/- from the amount payable as leave encashment, which is challenged in this writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Kataria, Executive Engineer, PIU, Haldwani on 21.04.2025. Since the reason for making recovery of amount from retiral dues of petitioner was not indicated in that counter affidavit, therefore respondent was directed to file supplementary counter affidavit vide order dated 29.04.2026. 4. Pursuant to said order, supplementary counter affidavit is filed. The reason for recovery is mentioned in para 3 of supplementary counter affidavit, which is extracted below: “3. That the recovery of Rs. 2,33,182/- from the leave encashment of the petitioner was made pursuant to departmental scrutiny and correction of pay fixation, wherein it was found that the petitioner had been extended excess financial benefit due to incorrect fixation of pay and grant of increments/revisions contrary to applicable rules since initial fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1987 and subsequent revisions.” 5. In supplementary counter affidavit, undertaking 2026:UHC:4228 given by petitioner on 15.02.2025 has been relied on. Said undertaking is on record as Annexure-4 to supplementary counter affidavit, in which petitioner stated that in case excess payment is made to him due to mistake in his pay fixation, then he shall be liable to refund such excess amount, failing which the authority would be at liberty to recover excess amount from retiral dues of the petitioner. 6. From the stand taken in para 3 of supplementary counter affidavit, it is apparent that petitioner is not responsible for excess payment made to him. There is no allegation that petitioner practiced fraud or misrepresented facts and department concedes that it was a mistake on the part of authorities, due to which excess amount was paid. The undertaking, which is enclosed as Anneuxre-4 to supplementary counter affidavit was given by petitioner after his retirement. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that undertaking was given by petitioner under duress as he was informed that his retiral dues would not be released in case he fails to give such undertaking. 8. Even otherwise also, it is not the case of respondents that petitioner had given the undertaking while he was still in service or at the time when his pay was fixed at a higher level. Undertaking, if any, given by petitioner after retirement is not relevant; therefore, it cannot be relied on for withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2026:UHC:4228 issue involved here is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 335 of 2023 (SS). He submits that this writ petition deserves to be decided in terms of that judgment. 10. Ms. Kanishka Rautela, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, appearing for respondent concedes that the issue involved in this petition is identical to one decided in aforesaid judgment. 11. In view of the consensus between the parties, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 18.09.2025 rendered in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. 12. It is made clear that excess amount, if paid to petitioner, would be recoverable (i) only when the petitioner is in any manner responsible for such excess payment, e.g. by playing fraud or by adopting other deceitful means; or (ii) where petitioner 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. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.05.2026 Mahinder/