Benefits under SRO 149, once extended, cannot be withdrawn or recovered from retired employees.

The applicants, retired employees of the Jal Shakti Department, challenged communications issued by the respondents refusing to process their pension cases by taking into account the benefits allegedly available under SRO 149 of 1973.

They also challenged the proposed re-fixation of pay, withholding of gratuity and other retiral benefits, and the possibility of recovery of amounts previously paid under the higher pay scale.

The applicants sought pensionary benefits on the basis of their last pay drawn, release of withheld gratuity and other benefits, and protection against recovery.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute concerned the applicability and continuance of benefits under SRO 149 of 1973.

The respondents relied upon the pendency of a review application before the Supreme Court against the judgment governing the issue.

Whether the respondents could withdraw or ignore the benefits of SRO 149 of 1973 while determining the applicants’ pay and pensionary benefits?

Whether the respondents could re-fix the applicants’ pay or recover amounts allegedly paid in excess under SRO 149, particularly from retired or Class-III employees?

Whether the respondents were required to release the applicants’ withheld gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits after processing the pension cases in accordance with the applicable pay benefits?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It relied principally on the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Provincial Power Employees Union of India & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., SWP No. 809/2021 and connected matters, decided on 8 May 2017, which held that eligible employees were entitled to the benefit of SRO 149 of 1973 and subsequent pay revisions, and that arbitrary denial of the benefit violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

The High Court further held that recovery could not be made from Class-III employees or retired employees, relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), (2015) 4 SCC 334.

It also relied on Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana, (1987) 3 SCC 113, for the principle that pay scales may validly be linked to educational qualifications.

The Tribunal recorded that the Supreme Court had dismissed the State’s challenge in Civil Appeal No. 7992/2022, State of J&K & Ors. v. Provincial Power Employees, thereby allowing the High Court’s ruling on SRO 149 to attain finality.

The resulting principles were that recovery of excess payments under SRO 149 was impermissible, amounts already recovered were refundable, validly granted benefits could not be arbitrarily withdrawn, and pay or pension could not be re-fixed to the employees’ prejudice where the SRO 149 benefit had been extended.

The Tribunal treated the High Court’s decision, as affirmed by dismissal of the State’s appeal by the Supreme Court, as governing the dispute concerning SRO 149.

Since similarly situated employees in other departments had received the benefit and the State had previously extended and upheld it, withdrawal or denial of the benefit to the applicants was considered arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14.

Applying the principle in Rafiq Masih, the Tribunal held that recovery from retired or Class-III employees could not be sustained, particularly where the payments had not resulted from fraud or misrepresentation by the employees.

The respondents’ pending review application before the Supreme Court did not displace the binding effect of the existing judgments.

Consequently, the proposed recovery and disturbance of the applicants’ settled pay and pensionary benefits were held legally unsustainable.

The respondents were further directed to forward all relevant documents, along with revised last-pay certificates, to the Accountant General for final settlement and release of gratuity, leave encashment and General Provident Fund contributions in accordance with the governing judgment on SRO 149, within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of without costs.