Concurrent drawal of prior pension and full salary from an autonomous body is legally impermissible.

The applicant, Mohammad Rashid Chowdhary, was a Lecturer in the Higher Education Department (HED) of J He sought voluntary retirement on August 17, 2005

Concurrently, he joined Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University (BGSBU), an autonomous body, as Deputy Registrar on August 4, 2005, and was later appointed Registrar on January 23, 2009

From 2005 until 2024, the applicant received a government pension from the HED while drawing a full salary from BGSBU

Upon his retirement from BGSBU in 2022, audit objections were raised by the Accountant General and Finance Department

These objections alleged that the applicant could not simultaneously draw a full salary and a pension and that his pay fixation as Registrar was erroneous because the post was a two-year tenure appointment

Consequently, the HED ordered a recovery of ₹51,36,996 and BGSBU withheld his university pension and proposed a recovery of ₹90,87,774

The applicant challenged these recoveries and the withholding of his retiral benefits.

1. Whether the applicant was legally entitled to draw a full government pension from the Higher Education Department while simultaneously receiving a full salary from BGSBU

2. Whether the University could retrospectively deny the salary and associated retiral benefits for the post of Registrar on the grounds that the appointment was tenure-based and lacked a formal extension

3. Whether the proposed recoveries from the applicant’s pensionary benefits were legally sustainable under the governing service regulations

The court primarily applied Article 185-D(V) of the J Civil Service Regulations (CSR), which governs employees absorbed into autonomous bodies, noting that such cases are not simple voluntary retirements under Article 230

It further relied on Article 259(d) of the J CSR, which prohibits the simultaneous drawal of full salary and pension by re-employed or absorbed persons

Regarding recoveries, the court distinguished the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, holding that they do not apply when the foundational entitlement to the payment is legally lacking

Regarding OA 1197/2024 (HED pension), the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to follow the legally mandated procedure of technical resignation before joining the autonomous University

Under Article 259(d) of the J CSR, the applicant could not lawfully draw a full salary and a pension simultaneously; thus, the HED’s recovery order was valid

Regarding OA 1201/2024 (BGSBU benefits), the Tribunal held that while the Registrar post was originally a two-year tenure, the University permitted the applicant to discharge those duties until 2015

The University cannot retrospectively treat his service as illegal to deny him the salary for the period he actually worked

However, his lawful emoluments must be "reworked" by adjusting the HED pension against the BGSBU salary to prevent a double benefit

The Tribunal emphasized that justice required a balance: protecting the salary for work actually performed while ensuring no double recovery of the same components from different departments

It partly allowed OA 1201/2024, directing the University to: (a) refix emoluments by granting Registrar salary from 2009 to 2015; (b) adjust the HED pension against the university salary to avoid double benefit; (c) ensure no double recovery is made if the HED has already recovered amounts; and (d) release all recalculated retiral dues and leave encashment within three months

The Contempt Petition (CP 612/2025) was closed as the main issues were resolved