Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Chowdhary dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside recovery of pensionary benefits from a retired Class-C/D employee of the Jal Shakti Department. The High Court recorded that the benefits had been granted voluntarily and in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, and held that the Tribunal’s judgment was well reasoned and required no interference.

The writ petition was filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through its Commissioner/Secretary, Jal Shakti Department; Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti Department; Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Udhampur; and officers of the Accountant General, Jammu. The challenge was to an order dated 17 October 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, in an application filed by a retired employee.

Also Read: “Removal with Superannuation Benefits Does Not Forfeit Pension if Employee Is Otherwise Eligible: Supreme Court Affirms Right Under Clause 6(b) and Pension Regulations”

The respondent had served as a Class-C/D employee in the Jal Shakti (Public Health Engineering) Department. During service, he was granted benefits under SRO 87 of 1968, SRO 149 of 1973, and SRO 193. The petitioners submitted that upon verification of the respondent’s service records, it was found that benefits under SRO 149 had been granted after the SRO was repealed in December 1982. The respondent retired on 30 November 2023.

Following this review, the respondent’s pension case was processed by the Accountant General, who withheld gratuity and initiated recovery of the alleged excess amount. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent, citing incorrect implementation of SRO 149. Although the respondent submitted a reply, the petitioners proceeded with recovery.

The respondent challenged this action before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was his case that he had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation and that the benefits had been extended to him by the department itself. He relied on the judgment in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih to argue that recovery was impermissible in such circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the case was covered by its earlier decision in Parveen Singh v. UT of J&K and Others, and extended the same relief to the respondent. The Tribunal directed that the impugned order of recovery be quashed; that pay/pension be restored to the level prior to the recovery; that recovered amounts be refunded preferably within two months; and that for retired employees, pension be paid on the basis of last pay drawn. The Tribunal directed that these directions be implemented in the respondent’s case.

The High Court recorded: “Admittedly, the benefits under SRO 87 and SRO 149 (supra) were granted voluntarily by the writ-petitioners in favour of the applicant-respondent herein and subsequently, the said benefits have been withdrawn and initiated recovery from the salary of the respondent herein.”

It further stated: “It is not the case of the writ-petitioners that the benefits have been received by the applicant-respondent herein by way of fraud or misrepresentation.”

The Court observed that the legal position in such matters was settled by previous judgments of the Supreme Court and was rightly applied by the Tribunal. Referring to the Tribunal’s reliance on the decision in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Others, the High Court reproduced the relevant portions of that decision.

Quoting the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the judgment stated:
“The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery.”

The Court also included the categories identified by the Supreme Court in which recoveries would be impermissible:
“(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service)... (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery... (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary...”

Also Read: “No Substantiated Proof of Coercion or Criminal Conduct”: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Exploitation in Spiritual Centres

The Court recorded that the Tribunal had relied on these observations and that the facts of the present case were consistent with the legal standards described therein.

The High Court also referred the following from Thomas Daniel v State of Kerala
“Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified.”

The High Court observed that there was no allegation before it of any wrongdoing by the respondent and concluded: “The judgment impugned passed by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned, accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment/order passed by the Tribunal.”

The Court held: “In view of the above, the present writ-petition is dismissed along with connected application(s).”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: UT of J&K and Others v. Kashmiri Lal
Case Number: WP(C) No. 778/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Justice Tashi Rabstan, Justice M.A. Chowdhary

[Read/Download order]