Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/263/2026 of AJAY KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 17 August 2026
2026:UHC:7363
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 17th August, 2026 WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.263 of 2026 Ajay Kumar ------Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others
UKHC010074892026
2026:UHC:7363-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
17th August, 2026
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.263 of 2026
Ajay Kumar
------Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others
………Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M.S. Mehta, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Shiv Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. The present writ petition is directed against the order of recovery dated 15.01.2026, issued by Managing Director, BRIDCUL, with regard to alleged negligence on part of the petitioner in preparation of DPR of certain project, resulting in losses to the department. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the Managing Director of BRIDCUL was not empowered to issue any such recovery, based on alleged misconduct, inasmuch as the power to punish was with the PWD, the parent department, and not BRIDCUL, where the petitioner was working as a deputationist.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have made joint statement that the present matter is covered by the order passed today in connected WPSB No.170 of 2026. The said writ petition was directed against the order of suspension passed against the petitioner by Managing Director, BRIDCUL, and the challenge to the order of suspension was on identical grounds.
3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also
Page 1 of 2
UKHC010074892026
2026:UHC:7363-DB disposed of in same terms. The order of recovery dated 15.01.2026, passed by Managing Director, BRIDCUL, is hereby quashed. The PWD, which is the parent department of the petitioner, is given liberty to take decision with regard to recovery to be made, if any, from the petitioner.
4. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 17.08.2026 PP/
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…