Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2275/2025 of BAL BAHADUR Vs MANAGING DIRECTOR UTC on 29 December 2025
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No.2275 of 2025 Bal Bahadur ...Petitioner Versus Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others ….Respondents Present: Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the respondents.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.2275 of 2025
Bal Bahadur
...Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others
….Respondents
Present: Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
By means of instant petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ order of direction appropriate in nature of Certiorari to quash the office order dated 02.11.2023 (contained as Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.2,37,500/- has been made from gratuity amount of the petitioner after superannuation of the petitioner from the post attached to him.
(ii) Issue a writ order of direction appropriate in nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authority to refund/disburse the deducted amount to the tune of Rs.2,37,500/- (Two Lakh Thiry Seven Thousand Five Hundred Rupees only) as same has been made adjusted/recovered from gratuity of petitioner with statutory interest as per Section 7 (3-A) of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.
(iii) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 04.04.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022, Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena; and connected cases.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents admits this fact.
5. Since the matter is covered, instant petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 04.04.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 245 of 2022, Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena; and connected cases.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
29.12.2025 Jitendra