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

The Government of J&K challenged multiple orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu, which had quashed recovery proceedings and pay re-fixation orders against employees of the Jal Shakti (PHE) Department

The employees, belonging to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’, had been granted higher pay scales (Rs. 950-1500) under SRO 59 of 1990 and subsequent 1993 circulars

The Government contended that upon the implementation of SRO 14 of 1996 (providing in-situ promotions), SRO 59 was superseded, making the continued drawal of both benefits an illegal "dual benefit"

The CAT ruled in favor of the employees, citing Government Instruction No. 1 to Article 242 of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR), which prohibits verifying the correctness of emoluments beyond 24 months preceding retirement

1. Whether the 24-month bar on verifying the "correctness of emoluments" under Instruction No. 1 to Article 242 of CSR applies to cases of unauthorized dual benefits

2. Whether the Government is entitled to recover excess payments made to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees over several decades due to administrative error

The Court applied Article 242 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR), specifically Government Instruction No. 1, which limits the look-back period for emolument verification to 24 months for pension purposes

It further applied S.O. 129 dated 28.03.2022, which inserted Instruction No. 2 to Article 242, waiving this 24-month limit where "undue benefit" of deleted/withdrawn SROs was granted

Regarding recovery, the Court relied on the equitable principles established in *Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar*

and the specific prohibitory criteria for recovery from Group ‘C’/‘D’ and retired employees set out in *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)*

It also noted the precedent in *Sita Ram v. UT of J&K*, holding that "a mistake is always a mistake" and no employee has a vested right to an erroneous pay scale

The Court reasoned that "correctness of emoluments" under Instruction No. 1 typically covers clerical or arithmetical errors at an individual level, but does not shield a class of employees from the rectification of unauthorized dual benefits

By enacting S.O. 129 (Instruction No. 2), the Government explicitly allowed the correction of losses to the exchequer caused by defunct SROs, effectively bypassing the 24-month bar

The Court found that the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 was essentially linked to SRO 59, which became mutually exclusive with SRO 14 of 1996

While the Government has an inherent right to rectify its records and re-fix future pay/pension to stop unjust enrichment, the Court held that actual recovery of past payments would be iniquitous

Applying the *Rafiq Masih* guidelines, the Court determined that since the respondents were Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees and the errors spanned decades, recovery would impose "undue and inequitable hardship"

It held that while the Government cannot recover excess amounts already paid to the respondents (and must refund any already recovered within the period set by the Tribunal), the Government is at liberty to re-fix the pay and pension of the respondents by excluding the wrongly granted benefits moving forward

The 24-month bar does not prevent the prospective rectification of unauthorized dual benefits

All connected writ petitions were disposed of accordingly