SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 161

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SUMANLATA PATHAK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent


Office Notes,

reports, orders or

proceedings or

No Date COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

directions and

Registrar’s order

with Signatures

WPSS No. 54 of 2026

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for

the petitioner.

2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing

Counsel for the State.

3. In the present case, petitioner is a retired Government Employee. She retired from the post of Tutor from State College

of Nursing, Chandernagar, Dehradun.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby, an amount of Rs. 12,27,767/- is directed to be recovered from her retiral dues on the ground that her salary has wrongly been fixed from

01.01.2006.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned recovery has been effected without issuing any show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the petitioner never obtained any excess payment by way of misrepresentation or fraud, and whatever payment was made to her, was entirely due to the acts of the

department itself.

6. It is further argued that recovery from retiral dues of a ret

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top