Employer Can Correct Erroneous Dual Benefits By Re-Fixing Pay And Pension, But Recovery From Group C And D Employees Not Permissible: J&K&L High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, has held that authorities are entitled to re-fix pay and pension of employees who were erroneously extended dual benefits under SRO-59 and SRO-14, though recovery of excess amounts already paid to Group-C and Group-D employees over prolonged periods cannot be permitted. The Court was considering writ petitions filed by the Union Territory against Tribunal orders that had set aside recovery proceedings and directed restoration of pay and pensionary benefits to employees who had simultaneously availed concurrent benefits under both service regulations.
Multiple writ petitions were filed by the Union Territory administration challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu, which had granted relief to several employees regarding recovery of alleged excess payments. The Tribunal had disposed of original and transferred applications filed by employees who were either still in service or had already retired. In its directions, the Tribunal quashed recovery orders issued against the employees, directed restoration of their pay or pension to the earlier level, and ordered refund of any recovered amounts within two months. It also directed that pension be calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn for employees who had already retired.
The dispute arose after authorities-initiated verification of pay fixation and attempted recovery of amounts allegedly granted through simultaneous benefits under different service regulations. The administration argued that after implementation of SRO-14 of 1996, the earlier SRO-59 ceased to apply and employees were not entitled to overlapping benefits under both provisions. It was contended that such dual benefits caused recurring financial loss to the public exchequer.
The employees opposed the recovery proceedings, asserting that Government Instruction No.1 to Article 242 of the Civil Service Regulations barred reopening of emolument records beyond twenty-four months preceding retirement. They also argued that the benefits were granted through departmental circulars issued earlier and that recovery proceedings were unjustified. The Tribunal accepted the employees’ claims, which led the administration to challenge those orders before the High Court.
The Court examined the regulatory framework governing pay fixation and pension verification and recorded that “Government Instruction No. 1 to Article 242 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, Vol-I, mandates that from January 1, 1976, average emoluments for pension purposes shall be determined based on the last ten complete months of service.” The Bench further stated that “any verification of past emoluments… must not lead to an extensive examination of the distant past… and must not extend beyond 24 months preceding the date of retirement.”
The Court then clarified the scope of the expression relating to verification of emoluments and observed that “the term ‘correctness of emoluments’ applies to instances where an employee was assigned an incorrect pay scale or where arithmetical and clerical errors occurred during pay fixation.” It recorded that this limitation does not apply to cases where employees had been granted overlapping or unauthorized benefits.
Addressing the argument relating to dual benefits, the Bench recorded that “the respondents cannot be allowed to benefit indefinitely from an administrative error; such unjust enrichment is legally unsustainable putting unnecessary burden on the state exchequer and must be rectified.” The Court also stated that the benefits granted under the two service orders were of similar nature and therefore simultaneous extension of both resulted in unintended advantage to employees.
While examining the legality of recovery, the Court referred to precedents of the Supreme Court and noted that “the relief against the recovery is granted by the courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered.” The Bench further observed that “an employee has no legal entitlement to continue receiving dual or erroneous benefits in the future once the error is identified.”
However, the Court also considered the status of the employees involved and recorded that they belonged to Group-C and Group-D services. Referring to established principles on recovery of excess payments, the Court stated that recovery from such employees after a long period would cause hardship and therefore could not be permitted.
The Court directed that “all these writ petitions are disposed of by modifying the impugned order(s) to the extent that the petitioners shall not affect any recovery of the excess amount already paid to the respondents. If any such amount has been recovered, the same shall be refunded to them within the period prescribed by the learned Tribunal. The petitioners shall be at liberty to re-fix the pay/pension of the respondents by excluding the benefit wrongly granted to them.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Monika Kohli, Senior AAG
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Surinder Kour, Senior Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate; Mr. Sheikh Najeeb, Advocate; Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate; Mr. Pawan Choudhary, Advocate; Mr. M. K. Raina, Advocate; Mr. R. S. Parihar, Advocate; Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate; Ms. Himani Khajuria, Advocate.
Case Title: UT of J&K and Others v. Maqbool Sheikh and Connected Matters
Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:692
Case Number: WP(C) No. 936/2025 a/w connected matters
Bench: Chief Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal
