##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:4010

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

WPSS/ 526/ 2026

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiw ari, J.

Mr. Vinod Joshi, Advocate, holding

brief of Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for

the petitioner.

2. Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional Chief

Standing Counsel and Mr. Maneesh Bisht,

Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Petitioner served as Headmistress in

Government Primary School,

Bahadrabad, Haridwar, who retired on

31.03.2020. She is challenging an order

issued by Deputy Education Officer,

Bahadrabad, Haridwar, whereby a sum of

`

31,805/- was ordered to be recovered

from her gratuity. Thus, feeling

aggrieved, petitioner has approached this

Court, seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of Certiorari to quash the office order

undated (contained as Annexure No. 4 to the

writ petition) whereby an order of recovery of

Rs. 31,805/- amount has been made from the

retirement dues of the petitioner.

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of Mandamus commanding and directing

the respondent authority to pay the remaining

deducted amount of Rs. 31,805/- which were

deducted from the retirement dues of the

petitioner with the statutory bank interest and

as per the provision of 7A of gratuity act.”

4. A counter affidavit is filed by Mr.

Bhanu Pratap Sharma on behalf of

respondent no. 6. Para 4 of the said

counter affidavit is extracted below:-

2026:UHC:4010

“4. That the content of para no. 6 of the

writ petition are not admitted hence denied. It

is submitted that in response to the letter no.

Vidhi/ Das-07/ 21/ 2022 (01)/ 3203-06/2025-

26 dated 11.08.2025 of the Director, Secondary

Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, a

discrepancy was found between the pay

fixations of the petitioner and the pay slips

taken out from Integrated Finance Management

System (IFMS) (from April 2009 to March

2020), in which prima facie, Mrs. Shimla Devi

was found to be receiving Rs.31805.00 (Rupees

thirty one thousand eight hundred and five

only) more salary as compared to the pay

fixations. The recovery of which has been made

from her gratuity, which is completely as per

the rules. A true/correct typed version/

photocopy of the letter dated 11.08.2025 is

being filed herewith and marked as Annexure

no. CA-1 to this affidavit.”

5. Learned State Counsel submits that

since excess payment was made to the

petitioner due to mistake, therefore,

such excess payment is liable to be

recovered.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner,

however, submits that as Group-C

employee of the State Government,

petitioner is not liable for any recovery

after her retirement. He submits that

even otherwise also, there is no

allegation that petitioner practiced fraud

or misrepresented facts before the

concerned authority for getting excess

payment released in her favour,

therefore, the respondents are not

entitled to make any recovery from the

gratuity of the petitioner. Reliance is also

placed upon a judgment rendered by this

Court in WPSS No. 335 of 2023 and

other connected petitions.

7. Learned State Counsel concedes

that there is no allegation that petitioner

practiced fraud upon the authority and

2026:UHC:4010

further that petitioner also did not make

any misrepresentation for getting extra

money released in her favour. He

concedes that facts of the present case

are similar to the facts involved in WPSS

No. 335 of 2023.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts

and reasons, the writ petition is decided

in terms of the judgment rendered in

WPSS No. 335 of 2023. Impugned order,

which, is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the

writ petition, is set aside and the

respondents are directed to refund the

amount if recovered from gratuity

payable to the petitioner on the strength

of impugned order, within six weeks from

the date of presentation of certified copy

of this order.

(Manoj Kumar Tiw ari, J.)

21.05.2026

Navin