High Court Reaffirms Existing Precedent; Writ Petitions on Gratuity Recovery to Be Decided as per Previous Division Bench Judgment—Binding Authority for Service Law Disputes in Uttarakhand Transport Sector
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1725/2025 of BHUPAL DATT JOSHI Vs MANAGING DIRECTOR UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION |
| CNR | UKHC010165382025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Uttarakhand; persuasive outside jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 245 of 2022 & connected matters (dated 04.04.2024) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Recovery from retirement benefits |
| Questions of Law | Whether recovery of alleged excess payment can be effected from gratuity without following the law laid down in SPA No. 245 of 2022 & connected matters |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Single Judge reaffirmed that the issue of recovering alleged excess payment from gratuity is governed by the law as laid down by the Division Bench in SPA No. 245 of 2022 and connected matters. The said precedent was not contested by the respondent. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of this binding Division Bench judgment, making its reasoning applicable to all similar recovery disputes in the sector. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | SPA No. 245 of 2022 & connected matters (Division Bench, Uttarakhand High Court, judgment dated 04.04.2024) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court deferred to the binding Division Bench precedent, as the legal question had already been adjudicated therein and was uncontested by both sides. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, retired as an Electrician from Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 31.03.2025, was served with an order dated 29.03.2025 by the Regional Manager stating that ₹2,07,978 was paid in excess and would be recovered from his gratuity of ₹13,23,686. He challenged the recovery, relying on Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 245 of 2022. The respondent did not dispute the applicability of this judgment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand; Uttarakhand Transport Corporation |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India and public sector undertakings facing similar gratuity recovery disputes |
| Follows | SPA No. 245 of 2022 & connected matters (Division Bench, Uttarakhand High Court, 04.04.2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reiterates that disputes related to recovery of excess payment from gratuity must be decided in accordance with the law laid down in SPA No. 245 of 2022 and its connected matters.
- Respondents (public sector employers) cannot oppose petitions in similar matters if they have previously accepted the Division Bench judgment.
- Litigants can seek immediate relief by referencing the Division Bench authority where facts are on all fours.
- Petitions based on identical legal issues may be disposed of summarily without need for elaborate hearings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judge recorded that the petitioner was aggrieved by recovery of alleged excess amounts from his gratuity at the time of retirement.
- The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the matter was already settled by a binding Division Bench judgment (SPA No. 245 of 2022, decided 04.04.2024).
- The respondent’s counsel did not dispute the submission; instead, agreed that the present petition may be disposed of accordingly.
- The court thus disposed of the petition “in terms of judgment dated 04.04.2024 rendered in SPA No. 245 of 2022 & connected matters.”
- The legal effect is that all similar disputes are to be governed and disposed of as per the existing Division Bench precedent.
- The court did not examine factual or legal arguments afresh, noting that the issue is no longer res integra.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that the question of recovering alleged excess payments from gratuity had already been settled by a Division Bench in SPA No. 245 of 2022 and connected matters.
- Sought the petition be decided in light of that binding authority.
Respondent (Uttarakhand Transport Corporation)
- Did not dispute the applicability or correctness of the petitioner’s submission.
- Agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the previously decided Division Bench judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner retired as an Electrician from the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 31.03.2025. Just prior to retirement, the Regional Manager (Technical) issued an order on 29.03.2025 stating that ₹2,07,978/- had been paid in excess and would be recovered from the petitioner’s gratuity amount of ₹13,23,686/-. The petitioner challenged this recovery action through a writ petition, relying on an earlier Division Bench decision. The respondent Corporation declined to contest the applicability of the prior judgment.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment refers to the legal principles regarding recovery from gratuity as settled in SPA No. 245 of 2022 & connected matters. No further statutory provisions are analyzed in this order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded or discussed in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were issued in this judgment. The petition was disposed of in summary terms by following binding precedent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Single Judge followed and applied binding precedent set by a Division Bench in SPA No. 245 of 2022 and connected matters.