Ab. Habib Wani vs Union Territory Of J&K & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The matter was listed today for filing of reply. Reply has not been filed by the respondents. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant, after arguing the matter for some time, submits that the interests of justice would be adequately served if the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant’s claims regarding protection against recovery under SRO-59 of 1990, release of his gratuity, leave salary, G.P. Fund and other retiral benefits, together with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{02.Mr. Rais-ud-Din Ganaie, learned Deputy Advocate} General, appearing for the respondents, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

The case of the applicant is that he was engaged as a Road Worker/Road Supervisor and that, on account of the low grade in which such employees were working, the Government issued SRO-59 of 1990 and extended the benefit of the grade of ₹900-1500. It is submitted that a number of Road Workers/Road Supervisors approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and, pursuant to the directions issued therein, the Government extended the benefit up to the year 1996. According to the applicant, the employees concerned had been regularized prior to 1990 and were accordingly extended the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990.

It is further submitted that the applicant is presently working under the control of the Executive Engineer, Central Administrative Tribunal^{R&B Division, Kupwara, and is at the verge of} superannuation. The applicant submits that his gratuity, leave salary and G.P. Fund have been kept withheld pursuant to the instructions of the Administrative Department for effecting recovery on account of the benefit extended under SRO-59 of 1990.

The applicant apprehends that, when his service record is forwarded to the office of the Accountant General, deductions/recovery may be effected from his retiral benefits on account of the benefit extended under SRO-59 of 1990, causing him irreparable loss. It is his case that the said benefit was extended to him on the basis of his service record and that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part.

The applicant further submits that the respondents cannot withhold his leave salary, G.P. Fund and gratuity on the ground that any recovery is proposed in respect of the benefit extended under SRO-59 of 1990. It is contended that such action is contrary to the law laid down by this Central Administrative Tribunal^{Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble} Supreme Court.

The applicant has placed on record his service records as Annexure-I. He further submits that he is facing financial hardship and that, in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part, recovery of the benefit already extended to him is not permissible. Reliance has been placed in the pleadings upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010, decided on 02.05.2022, as well as the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training regarding recovery of wrongful/excess payments from Government servants.

The applicant has also referred to the judgment in WP(C) No.719/2025 and to the communication bearing No. E-45483-PHE/3/202/Accts PHE dated 22.04.2024, stated to have been relied upon by the respondents for effecting recovery in respect of the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990. The applicant contends that such recovery is contrary to Central Administrative Tribunal^{the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this} Tribunal.

The applicant has further referred to the judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed in WP(C) No.296/2024, titled Jamsheed Ahmad Khan v. UT of J&K, as well as the judgment dated 14.05.2024 in SWP No.2237/2014, stated to have considered the principles laid down in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih. The applicant has also placed reliance upon the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by this Tribunal in T.A. No.120/2024, titled Hafizullah Shah & Ors. v. Finance Department, and seeks similar treatment in his case.

The applicant has challenged the proposed recovery, inter alia, on the ground that the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 was extended to him after the respondents found him eligible and after satisfaction of the Administrative Department. It is contended that the arrears were released in his favour and that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Central Administrative Tribunal^{11.It is further contended that the recovery or deduction from} the applicant’s gratuity and leave salary is illegal and contrary to law. According to the applicant, the Department itself had acknowledged that the pay was fixed and arrears were released in accordance with the applicable provisions, and that the question of release of pensionary benefits would be considered by the Accountant General at the time of superannuation.

The applicant further submits that the respondents cannot seek recovery of the amount paid under SRO-59 of 1990 as excess payment and that the communication relied upon for the purpose of recovery is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended that the respondents are required to follow the procedure and law governing the field and cannot take any measure which would cause prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant has also pleaded that he has represented before the respondents on several occasions seeking redressal of his grievance, but no effective action has been Central Administrative Tribunal^{taken, constraining him to approach this Tribunal.}

The respondents, on the other hand, place reliance upon the judgments rendered in Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, decided on 04.04.2025, Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K and Others, WP(C) No.1730/2020 (O&M) c/w CCP(S) No.32/2021, decided on 02.06.2022, and Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others, WP(C) No.936/2025, decided on 06.03.2026, particularly with regard to the competence of the Department to correct an erroneous pay fixation and the consequential action that may be taken in accordance with the applicable rules. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the claims raised by the applicant are required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid judgments and the applicable rules governing the field.

Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar and the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicant, this Tribunal finds that the grievance raised by the applicant Central Administrative Tribunal^{can appropriately be considered by the competent} authority on the basis of his relevant service record, the documents relied upon by him and the applicable rules, regulations and the law governing the field.

Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order. 18.With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs. 20.Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.

Central Administrative Tribunal