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 retired employee,

particularly when the employee belongs to Class III or Class IV category and is not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation, is impermissible in law. Learned counsel would submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih ( White Washer) , ( 2015) 4 SCC 334, as well as by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 04.04.2024 in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022, Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena and connected matters.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that the recovery has been affected on the ground that excess salary was paid to the petitioner, and therefore, the department was justified in making the recovery.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already retired from service, and the recovery in question has been made from her retiral dues. It is also not the case of the respondents that the excess payment was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud or making any misrepresentation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) vs. State of Punjab (supra) has categorically held that recovery of excess payment is