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

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1859

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
KHARAK SINGH BORA – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY – Respondent
WPSS 1363/ 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deep Prakash Bhatt
For the Respondents: K.N. Joshi

Recovery from retiral dues of Group C employees is generally impermissible if no fraud or misrepresentation occurred, necessitating a reasoned decision on representations against such recoveries.

Headnote:The case involves the recovery of funds from the gratuity of a retired officer. The petitioner challenges the recovery made via a Pension Payment Order, asserting that no fraud or misrepresentation was committed to obtain the excess amount. The primary issue is whether recovery from the retiral dues of a Group C employee is permissible without notice or hearing, especially in light of judicial precedents. The court noted the submission of a representation by the petitioner seeking redressal. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by directing the competent authority to take decision on petitioner’s representation, as per law, within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

Table of Content
1. challenge to recovery from retiral dues of group c employees. (Para 2 , 3)
2. direction to competent authority to decide on representation. (Para 4 , 5)

Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings S NL o. Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s order with Signatures

(2) Petitioner retired from the post of Livestock Extension Officer from Department of Animal Husbandry on 31.8.2025. After his retirement, a sum of ₹3,47,608 was recovered from the amount payable as gratuity to him, as is revealed from Pension Payment Order issued on 8.12.2025. Thus feeling aggrieved by the recovery made by the competent authority, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner neither played fraud nor misrepresented facts for getting excess amount released in his favour and whatever amount was paid to petitioner was as per the orders passed by the competent authority. He submits that in view of the law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court, recovery cannot be made from retiral dues of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before passing the recovery order. It is further contended that petitioner retired from a Group C post and as per law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court, recovery is not permissible from Group C employees.

(4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made a representation highlighting his grievance. Representation, which is enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, was reportedly made on 28.1.2026. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that competent authority be asked to take decision on the said representation. Learned State Counsel assures that decision on petitioner’s representation, if not already taken, shall be taken within six weeks.

(5) Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by directing the competent authority to take decision on petitioner’s representation, as per law, within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

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 Back to top