Employers may re-fix erroneous pay/pension but are barred from recovering past excess payments from Group C and D employees.

The petitioners (UT of J&K) challenged various orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu, which had quashed recovery proceedings and directed the restoration of pay/pension for several employees.

The dispute arose because certain employees in the PWD/Jal Shakti departments were allegedly drawing "dual benefits" from both SRO 59 of 1990 (upgraded pay scales) and SRO 14 of 1996 (in-situ promotions), which the Government deemed illegal.

While the Government sought to re-fix pay and recover excess amounts based on a 2021 verification circular, the employees relied on Government Instruction No. 1 to Article 242 of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR), which prohibits checking the correctness of emoluments beyond 24 months preceding retirement.

Whether the 24-month limitation on verifying the correctness of emoluments under Instruction No. 1 to Article 242 of the CSR bars the Government from re-fixing pension in cases of unauthorized dual benefits.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover excess payments made to Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees over several decades due to administrative error.

The Court applied Article 242 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR), specifically Instruction No. 1, which limits the audit of past emoluments to 24 months prior to retirement.

The newly inserted Instruction No. 2 (via S.O. 129 of 2022), which waives this 24-month bar where "undue benefit" of deleted/withdrawn SROs was granted.

The Court relied on the equitable principles established in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar.

The specific prohibitory criteria for recovery against low-income or retired employees set out in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer).

The Court reasoned that "correctness of emoluments" under Instruction No. 1 refers to clerical or arithmetical errors, but does not shield an entire class of employees from the rectification of unauthorized dual benefits.

It held that S.O. 129 explicitly allowed the Government to look beyond the 24-month window for withdrawn SROs to protect the exchequer.

The Court found that SRO 59 and SRO 14 were intended to be mutually exclusive as they served the same purpose of upgrading pay; thus, the simultaneous drawal was a mistake.

However, while the Government has an inherent right to rectify a "wrong pay scale" at any time because "a mistake is always a mistake".

The right to recover those past payments is governed by equity. Since the respondents were Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, the Court determined that recovering funds paid over decades would be "iniquitous" and cause "undue hardship" as per the Rafiq Masih guidelines.

However, the Court prohibited the recovery of any excess amounts already paid to the respondents and directed that any amounts already recovered must be refunded within the period prescribed by the Tribunal.

Each case was disposed of with these directions.