2026:UHC:383 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No. 912 OF 2025 With WPSS No. 837 of 2025 WPSS No. 846 of 2025 WPSS No. 1613 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Bandhu on contract against available vacancies in different Government Schools, in the year 2004. According to them, they were conferred status of ad-hoc teacher in 2006 and their services were thereafter regularised in 2014. According to petitioners, they were rightly given benefit of annual increment and selection grade by taking into account the services rendered on ad-hoc capacity, however, that benefit was subsequently ordered to be recovered. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that State Government has now issued a Government Order on 05.01.2026, which provides that ad-hoc services rendered by Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade and Lecturer, serving in Government Schools, shall be counted for grant of selection grade and promotional pay-scale. He submits that since State Government has taken a conscious decision to reckon the ad-hoc 2026:UHC:383 services for grant of selection grade and promotional pay-scale, therefore, the order of recovery passed against the petitioners is clearly unsustainable. He submits that the amount sought to be recovered was paid to petitioners as selection grade qua the ad-hoc services rendered by them. In view of Government Order dated 05.01.2026, the order of recovery is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon a law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, for contending that after retirement no recovery can be made from a Government Servant. 6. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that since State Government has now taken a policy decision but that decision is only qua selection grade and promotional pay-scale, while petitioners were given other benefit which was found to be wrongly given, therefore, their case is not squarely covered by Government Order, relied by learned counsel for the petitioners. He, however, submits that petitioners can make representation to the Competent Authority, highlighting their grievance, and the Competent Authority shall look into the matter, as per law. 7. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation(s) to the Director, School Education. If petitioners make representation(s) within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by Director, within three months 2026:UHC:383 thereafter. For a period of three months or till decision is taken, whichever is later, no recovery shall be made from the petitioners. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 08.01.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1 369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F46 10C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.01.09 03:01:45 -08'00'