HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI

Writ Petition Service Single No. 1695 of 2023

24 September, 2025

Ghyamshyam Atwal --Petitioner

Versus

State Bank of India & others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

Petitioner was enrolled in Indian Army. After

serving for nearly two decades, he retired from the rank of Havaldar on 31.3.2005. He thereafter applied for the post of Armed Guard, pursuant to an advertisement issued by State Bank of India and after selection, he was appointed as Armed Guard w.e.f. 17.12.2009 and he retired from the post of Head Guard from the bank on

31.3.2025.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has

sought the following reliefs:-

“i- A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned decision dated 10- 02-2023 (copy Annexure No. 9 to the Writ Petition) along with consequential pay reduction and recovery orders dated 02-05-2023 and 03.05.2023 (copy

Annexure No. 10 and 11 to the Writ Petition).

ii- A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus upon the Respondents to pay the arrears of difference of salary for the period between December 2009 to November 2011 with interest and to pay the salary for the month of May 2023 onwards and not to proceed any further for recovery of amount from the Petitioner pursuant to impugned orders dated 10-02-2023, 02-05-2023 and 03-05-

2023.”

3. Annexure-9 to the writ petition is a communication issued by Regional Manager on 10.2.2023, in which it is mentioned that at the time of his retirement from Indian Army, petitioner was getting `4,500/- as basic pay, `2,300/- as dearness pay and ` 1,156 as dearness allowance, total `7,956/-, therefore his basic pay at the time of appointment in State Bank of India should have been fixed at `5,500/-; while, basic pay of petitioner was fixed at a higher level after appointment in the bank, which needs to be corrected and recovery of the excess payment has to be made by HRMS, as per the calculation mentioned in the letter.

4. Annexure-10 is the e-mail issued by Manager, HRMS, New Delhi to Branch Office, Tanakpur (Champawat), wherein it is mentioned that a sum of `20,01,690.25/- has to be recovered from the petitioner or else petitioner’s P.F. number will be locked; no salary and allowance will be paid to him; Branch Manager will not be able to make his attendance and his leave also cannot be applied thereafter.

5. Annexure-11 is the letter issued by Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tanakpur Branch on 3.5.2023, in which after referring to the e-mail dated 2.5.2023 received from Manager, HRMS, New Delhi, Branch Manager informed the petitioner about the recovery, which has to be made from him and advised him to make arrangement in his salary account so that the amount, which is to be recovered, can be realized.

6. Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel appearing for the bank submits that due to mistake by the bank authorities, petitioner’s basic pay at the time of appointment was fixed at a much higher level than what he was eligible for. He submits that since petitioner’s basic pay at the time of retirement was fixed at `4,500/-, therefore, at the time of his appointment in the bank w.e.f. 17.12.2009, his basic pay was liable to be fixed at `5,500/-. Mr. Barthwal refers to paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Manager, H.R. & Admn., Region-3, Pithoragarh, where it is stated that petitioner’s basic pay was erroneously fixed by Chief Manager (Admn./Rural) as `11,350/- w.e.f. 17.12.2009, and consequently his basic pay as on 1.12.2017 was erroneously fixed as `21,165/-. He submits that since the excess payment released to the petitioner was on account of erroneous pay fixation, therefore, the bank is well within its