Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPSS/ 1566/ 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Petitioner retired from the post of Lecturer, Government Inter College, Pithoragarh on 31.01.2024. After retirement, an order was passed against him, on 22.03.2024 by Finance Officer, School Education, Pithoragarh, informing petitioner that certain amount is liable to be recovered from him. Thereafter, a chart, indicating the amount to be recovered from the petitioner, was prepared and served upon him by Drawing Disbursing Officer.

4. As per chart, recovery of ₹2,38,407/- was to be made from the petitioner. Ultimately, Treasury Officer passed an order on 05.08.2024. PPO was issued by the Treasury Officer, in which it was clearly mentioned in Clause 2 that a sum of ₹2,38,407/- shall be recovered from the dues payable to petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. He further submits that petitioner neither played fraud nor was he responsible, in any manner, for excess amount, if paid, therefore, the Competent Authority is not entitled to make any recovery from the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of WPSS No. 335 of 2023 and submitted that since the issue involved in this writ petition has been dealt with in the said judgment, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be decided in terms of the judgment dated 18.09.2025 rendered in WPSS No. 335 of 2023 & other connected matters.

7. Learned State Counsel concedes that since the issue involved is common, therefore, the writ petition can be decided in terms of said judgment.

8. In view of consensus between the parties, the writ petition is decided in terms of judgment dated 18.09.2025 rendered in WPSS No. 335 of 2023. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the refixation of pay of the petitioner and Departmental Authorities shall be at liberty to re-fix the pay of petitioner at the appropriate level, as per applicable Government Policy/Rules.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)

15.12.2025 Aswal N S A I S I N T W G I R A H A L J DC2asAD te0.O CS iN a 5=r g 8 WtFi UU :4ae b4 tcR lAT : a2N = 2 Tl L 80I u0 A yN dO= 6m R s 1, 1 eF 5 io30bag . U= 1 KC ce n 2 T9H Hr1 e =6 F Id A G7A 41 5 N b52HR 0 DE y 82 CeBaA, NK : O354 HI704 T 1 U 8 8fC 2 NR B3,1 AD Fp1 eO -0 J o, 0 9FS 2s 8 3B I t ' UN a7F flTG 6C89 H o980d A3R C,e 4S cB=f n WK 602H F76N143 L 0I N TC D 2 01R ,, A o5EJ ua3 S = DI 8H N25I 6G GfF9 H H 58 C022aD3