AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]
The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as a Class-IV employee, i.e. Helper, with effect from 01.04.1994 in the respondent department and retired from service on 28.02.2025. It is submitted that the applicant was granted the benefit of upgradation of pay in terms of SRO-59 of 1990 with effect from 01.01.2013, along with other employees who were granted the benefit of the said SRO. A copy of the relevant pages of the Service Book of the applicant has been annexed with the Original Application.
It is submitted that the applicant has neither played any fraud nor made any misrepresentation before the authorities on account of which the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 was extended to him. The said benefit was extended by the competent authority. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra), the respondents cannot resort to recovery proceedings in respect of the benefit already extended to the applicant, particularly at the fag end of his service career. It is further submitted that the respondents have proceeded without following the due process of law and without properly appreciating the judgments governing the field.
The applicant is aggrieved of the communication bearing No. JSDH/Estt/260 dated 22.04.2025 issued by Central Administrative Tribunalrespondent No.4, whereby recovery of an amount of ₹22,17,858/- towards alleged excess payment has been initiated against him. It is submitted that the applicant was granted the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 on the strength of his entitlement and, once the said benefit had been extended by the competent authority, there was no occasion for the respondents to initiate recovery from his pensionary benefits. The applicant has accordingly sought quashing of the impugned communication, a direction that no deduction be made from his gratuity or pensionary benefits on account thereof, and a further direction to the respondents to finalise his pension case and release all pensionary benefits, including gratuity, leave salary and GPF.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid claims may be considered by the respondents in the light of the judgments relied upon by him, including Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, decided on 04.04.2025, and Deshbir Central Administrative TribunalSingh 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, as also the applicable rules governing the field.
Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned DAG appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 4, Ms. Rahella Khan for respondent No.5 and Mr. Mubashir Malik for respondent No.6, on advance notice, submits that the respondents also place reliance upon 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, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, 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. Central Administrative TribunalThey submit 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. They, however, submit that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicant.
Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:
The respondents shall be at liberty to scrutinize the individual case of the applicant and determine, on the basis of the relevant service record and the applicable rules, whether the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 was rightly or wrongly extended to him. However, before passing any order adverse to the applicant, the respondents shall issue notice to him, furnish the material proposed to be relied upon, and afford him a reasonable Central Administrative Tribunalopportunity of representation, including an opportunity to submit such documents as he may deem appropriate in support of his claim. Such exercise shall be undertaken in accordance with the principles of natural justice as reiterated by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Sita Ram (supra).
If, upon such scrutiny, it is found that the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 was rightly granted, no re-fixation of pay/pension or recovery shall be effected, and the applicant shall continue to be governed by the pay fixation already made. This shall be in consonance with the principles laid down in Sita Ram (supra).
If, upon such scrutiny, it is found that the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 was wrongly granted, the respondents shall be entitled to regulate and re-fix the pay or pension of the applicant prospectively in accordance with the applicable rules and the law laid down in Sita Ram (supra), Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K (supra), and Maqbool Sheikh & Others (supra).
Any decision taken pursuant to the aforesaid scrutiny shall be communicated to the applicant by means of a reasoned and speaking order indicating the basis upon which his entitlement or otherwise to the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 has been determined.
Notwithstanding such re-fixation, no recovery shall be effected from the applicant in respect of the amounts already paid to him on account of grant of the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990, provided such benefit was not obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts on his part, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra).
Any amount, if already recovered from the applicant towards the benefits extended to him under SRO-59 of 1990, shall be refunded to him in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Sita Ram (supra).
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents.
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.
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.
Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.