Allowed¶5

Ravindra Singh v. Uttarakhand Transport Ocrporation

Uttarakhand HC9 Apr 2026WPSS/2307/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retiral dues recovery challenged by retired Group ‘C’ employee of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (Junior Centre In-charge, retired 30.6.2024); ₹2,48,060/- recovered per orders dated 23.6.2021 and 14.8.2024; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih ((2015) 4 SCC 334) invoked against recovery of excess payment from employee not responsible for it; writ petition decided in terms of judgment dated 4.4.2024 in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022 after respondents conceded the issue was identical and no outstanding dues remained (₹5,32,600/- loan repaid 23.5.2025); respondents directed to clear pending dues within three months. Single-judge bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Neutral citation 2026:UHC:2562.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to clear all pending dues of the petitioner within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order.

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPSS 2307/2024
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate, for
the respondents.

(2)
Petitioner retired from the post of
Junior Centre In-charge from Uttarakhand
Transport Corporation, on 30.6.2024. After
his retirement, a sum of ₹2,48,060/- was

recovered
from
retiral
dues
of
the
petitioner,
pursuant
to
orders
dated
23.6.2021 and 14.8.2024. Thus feeling
aggrieved, petitioner has approached this
Court challenging the recovery order.

(3)
It is contended that petitioner was
a Group ‘C’ employee, therefore, in view of
the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq
Masih, reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334,
recovery
is
not
permissible,
if
the
concerned employee is not in any manner
responsible
for
such
excess
payment.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies
upon a judgment rendered by Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.
245 of 2022 and submits that this writ
petition can also be decided in terms of the
judgment dated 4.4.2024, rendered in
Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022.

(4)
Mr. Lalit Samant, learned Counsel
for the respondents, submits that petitioner

had
taken
loan
of
₹5,32,600/-
from

Uttarakhand
State
Road
Transport

Corporation Employees Cooperative Loan

Society
Ltd,
Dehradun.
However,
he

submits that, as per his instructions,

Ravindra Singh v. Uttarakhand Transport Ocrporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Singh v. Uttarakhand Transport Ocrporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranveer Singh Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Neeraj Singh Kotwal Vs Badrinath Kedarnath Temple Committee

Virendra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vipin Chandra Kaloni Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Singh Papola Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand