Erroneous pay benefits may be refixed, but excess amounts already paid cannot be recovered absent fraud.

The applicant, a retired Class-IV employee who had served as an Assistant Lineman in the Public Health Engineering/Jal Shakti Department, was initially engaged as a daily-wage Helper and later regularised.

Pursuant to SRO 59 of 1990 and the order dated 06.10.2016 in Rattan Lal v. State of J&K, he was granted placement in the pay scale of Rs. 950–1500 notionally from 01.04.1996.

He retired on 30.11.2022 while drawing a basic pay of Rs. 53,600.

However, PPO No. 1123177383 dated 01.05.2023 fixed his pension at Rs. 18,050 per month by excluding the benefit granted under SRO 59, instead of the pension of Rs. 26,800 claimed by him on the basis of his last pay drawn.

The respondents contended that the SRO 59 benefit had been wrongly extended, was subsequently withdrawn pursuant to Government Order No. 277-F dated 06.06.2018, and could therefore be excluded while determining pension.

They also relied on S.O. 129 dated 28.03.2022, which amended Article 242 of the J&K Civil Services Regulations, and on the applicant’s undertaking to refund any excess payment.

The applicant sought quashing of the reduced pension fixation, release of gratuity and other retiral benefits, payment of arrears, and protection against recovery.

1. Whether the respondents were entitled to re-fix the applicant’s pay and pension by excluding the benefit granted under SRO 59 of 1990 after his retirement?

2. Whether the respondents could recover or adjust from the applicant’s salary, pension, gratuity, DCRG, or other retiral benefits any amount allegedly paid in excess due to the SRO 59 benefit?

3. Whether any amount already recovered or withheld from the applicant’s retiral benefits was liable to be refunded or released?

The Tribunal applied the distinction between lawful re-fixation of pay/pension and impermissible recovery of amounts already paid.

It relied principally on the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of J&K in UT of J&K v. Maqbool Sheikh, WPI No. 936/2025 and connected matters, decided on 06.03.2026, which held that the Government may re-fix pay or pension by excluding an erroneously granted SRO 59 benefit, but may not recover excess amounts already paid; amounts already recovered must be refunded.

The Tribunal also considered SRO 59 of 1990, Government Order No. 277-F dated 06.06.2018, and the amended Article 242 of the J&K Civil Services Regulations introduced by S.O. 129 dated 28.03.2022, which were relied upon by the respondents to justify scrutiny and re-fixation of the applicant’s pay.

The principle in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih against recovery from retired and lower-ranking employees was also relied upon in the applicant’s case, although the operative reasoning rested on Maqbool Sheikh.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had received the SRO 59 benefit pursuant to departmental fixation and that there was no allegation or evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on his part.

Applying Maqbool Sheikh, it held that the respondents could correct an erroneous fixation prospectively by determining the pay and pension legally admissible, including by excluding the SRO 59 benefit if it was wrongly granted.

However, the correction of pension did not authorise recovery of salary or other amounts already paid, particularly from a retired Class-IV employee who had not procured the benefit through fraud or misrepresentation.

The Tribunal therefore maintained the legal distinction between re-fixation and recovery: the former was permissible, while the latter was barred.

Any adjustment or withholding from gratuity, DCRG, or other retiral benefits on account of the alleged excess payment was consequently required to be refunded.

The respondents were permitted to re-fix the applicant’s pay and pension in accordance with the applicable rules by excluding the SRO 59 benefit, if found to have been wrongly granted.

However, no recovery could be made from the applicant in respect of amounts already paid to him.

Any amount already recovered or adjusted from his gratuity, DCRG, or other retiral benefits was directed to be refunded, after which the respondents were to release the gratuity and other admissible retiral benefits on the basis of the lawfully refixed pay and pension.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.