Any proposed recovery from retired employees’ benefits requires due process and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The three applicants, who had been appointed as Assistant Linemen, were granted benefits under SRO 59 of 1990 by an order dated 21 November 2016.

The respondents sought to recover ₹22,31,098, ₹23,61,495 and ₹13,61,383 from the respective applicants, including from their gratuity and other retiral benefits, following withdrawal of SRO 59 of 1990.

The applicants challenged the proposed recoveries as unlawful, contending that they had not caused the alleged overpayment and had not been afforded a hearing.

The respondents maintained that they could correct erroneous pay fixation and revise pension accordingly; they also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Sita Ram & Ors. v. UT of J&K.

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at the joint request of counsel.

Whether the respondents could recover the amounts paid under SRO 59 of 1990 from the applicants’ gratuity, pensionary or other retiral benefits.

Whether any proposed action concerning the applicants’ pay fixation and retiral benefits had to be preceded by a hearing and a reasoned decision.

The Tribunal referred to Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334; Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, AIR 2022 SC 2153; and Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.

It also noted the principle attributed to the Division Bench in Sita Ram & Ors. v. UT of J&K, WP(C) No. 2416/2024, decided 4 April 2025: the State may correct erroneous pay fixation, but recovery of amounts already paid to Group C and D employees, particularly at the end of service or after retirement, is not permissible.

The Tribunal directed that any proposed action be taken only in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal did not decide whether the applicants’ pay fixation was erroneous or whether recovery was ultimately permissible.

Instead, in light of the parties’ submissions and the authorities cited, it directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ case, take account of the relevant judicial pronouncements, and follow due process—including a reasonable opportunity to be heard—before taking any action.

It expressly left the merits open.

The respondents were directed to decide the applicants’ cases in accordance with law, after hearing them, and to communicate a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within eight weeks.

The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits and made no order as to costs.