J&K Pensioner’s SRO 59 Recovery Refund Claim To Be Considered If Earlier Rulings Cover Him: CAT

The applicant’s O.A. challenging matters concerning his pay fixation/upgradation under SRO 59 of 1990 was disposed of on 30 April 2025.

Alleging non-compliance, he initiated contempt proceedings and filed this M.A. seeking release or refund of amounts recovered from him following that pay fixation/upgradation.

He relied on orders concerning similarly situated employees, including Sita Ram and Maqbool Sheikh, and confined his claim in these proceedings to refund of the recovered amount; he did not press a claim for the benefit of SRO 59 of 1990.

The respondents submitted that the claim could be examined under the applicable rules and the cited judgments, including those concerning correction of erroneous pay fixation and consequential action.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s claim for release or refund of the amount recovered following his pay fixation/upgradation under SRO 59 of 1990.

2. Whether the M.A. and contempt petition should remain pending, or could be disposed of with directions for such consideration.

The Tribunal referred to Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (4 April 2025), Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others, WP(C) No. 936/2025 (6 March 2026), and Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K & Others, WP(C) No. 1730/2020 (O&M) with CCP(S) No. 32/2021 (2 June 2022).

Any refund entitlement remained subject to the applicable rules and law, the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement, and the absence of a legal impediment.

The Tribunal considered that keeping the M.A. and contempt petition pending would serve no useful purpose because both parties accepted that the applicant’s refund claim could be examined under the applicable rules and the cited judgments.

It therefore did not decide whether the applicant was in fact entitled to a refund.

Instead, it directed the respondents to assess whether he was similarly situated and squarely covered by the principles in Sita Ram and Maqbool Sheikh, and to decide his claim in accordance with law.

It directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim for release or refund of the recovered amount, subject to his being similarly situated and covered by the cited principles, his eligibility and entitlement under the applicable rules and law, and the absence of any legal impediment.

The contemnors were discharged; no order was made as to costs.