Any proposed recovery of excess payments after retirement must follow due process and afford a hearing.

The applicants, retired employees of the Jal Shakti Department, had received benefits under SRO 59 of 1990 following their redesignation as works supervisors.

They alleged that the respondents proposed to recover ₹8,08,256 from applicant No. 1 and ₹12,64,192 from applicant No. 2 from their gratuity and other pensionary benefits.

The respondents stated that SRO 59 had been withdrawn and that they could correct erroneous pay fixation and recalculate pension.

The applicants sought release of the withheld amounts and pensionary benefits, and interim protection against recovery.

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at the parties’ joint request.

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

2. Whether the Tribunal should decide the legality of the proposed recovery and direct release of the claimed amounts, or require the respondents to consider the applicants’ case after following due process.

The applicants relied on Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack in support of their objection to recovery.

The respondents referred to Sita Ram & Ors. v. UT of J&K, stating that while an erroneous pay fixation may be corrected, recovery from Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, particularly at the fag end of service or after retirement, is impermissible.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the cited judicial pronouncements, provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and issue a reasoned and speaking order; it did not itself decide the substantive legality of the recovery.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate whether the applicants’ pay fixation was erroneous or whether recovery was legally barred.

Instead, noting the competing positions and the respondents’ submission that the matter could be decided in light of Sita Ram, it required the respondents to consider the applicants’ case in accordance with law.

Any proposed action must follow due process, include a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and be communicated through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly left the merits open.

The respondents were directed to decide the applicants’ case in accordance with law, consider the cited judicial pronouncements, afford the applicants a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and communicate their decision by a reasoned and speaking order with due dispatch, preferably within a period of eight (the order does not specify a unit).

The Tribunal granted no final determination on entitlement to the withheld amounts or pensionary benefits and made no order as to costs.