Once granted, SRO 149 higher pay-scale benefits cannot be withdrawn absent fraud or misrepresentation.

The applicant was initially engaged as a daily wager in the Public Health Engineering Department in 1984 and was regularized as a Helper with effect from 1 April 1994 under SRO 64 of 1994.

He acquired an ITI qualification in February 1988 and claimed entitlement to the higher technical pay scale under SRO 149 of 1973.

The benefit was eventually granted to him with effect from 1 January 2004 by departmental order dated 31 January 2004.

The Government subsequently issued Order No. 227-PW (Hyd) of 2010 dated 8 June 2010, taking the position that SRO 149 of 1973 had been superseded by SRO 91 of 1982 and that the higher pay scales had been wrongly granted to employees merely on the basis of ITI qualifications.

Withdrawal of the benefit and recovery of alleged excess payments were consequently proposed.

The applicant challenged the Government Order insofar as it affected the higher pay scale already granted to him.

1. Whether the benefit of the higher technical pay scale under SRO 149 of 1973, once granted to the applicant, could be withdrawn on the ground that it had been wrongly or unauthorisedly extended?

2. Whether the respondents could re-fix the applicant’s pay and recover amounts already paid in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts?

The Tribunal considered SRO 149 of 1973, read with the earlier SRO 87 of 1968, under which matriculate employees possessing ITI qualifications had been granted the prescribed technical pay scales, while noting the respondents’ reliance on SRO 91 of 1982 as a subsequent Revised Pay Rules framework.

It also considered the Jammu & Kashmir Public Health Engineering Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1989, notified by SRO 380 of 1989, which govern posts, recruitment, promotion, and corresponding pay scales.

The Tribunal applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, as recognized in Provincial Power Employees Union of India & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., that the State cannot extend a benefit to similarly situated matriculate ITI-qualified employees and subsequently deny or withdraw it arbitrarily.

The Tribunal further relied on the dismissal of the State’s challenge in State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. v. Provincial Power Employees Union & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7992 of 2022, by the Supreme Court on 4 February 2026, which rendered the governing High Court judgment final.

A benefit granted by the competent authority, without fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, could not be withdrawn after a substantial period to the employee’s prejudice, nor could recovery ordinarily be made on account of the administration’s subsequent change of view.

The Tribunal held that the controversy had already been authoritatively settled in favour of matriculate employees possessing ITI qualifications.

The applicant had been granted the higher scale by the competent departmental authorities and had drawn it from 1 January 2004.

In view of the binding principle that similarly situated employees could not be discriminated against and that an extended benefit could not be arbitrarily withdrawn, the respondents’ reliance on the alleged supersession of SRO 149 of 1973 did not justify disturbing the applicant’s existing pay fixation.

The Tribunal also found no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression by the applicant.

Since the benefit had been granted by the Department itself and had continued for a considerable period, any administrative error could not be used to impose re-fixation or recovery upon the applicant.

Government Order No. 227-PW (Hyd) of 2010 dated 8 June 2010 was set aside qua the applicant insofar as it sought to withdraw the benefit already granted under SRO 149 of 1973.

The respondents were directed to continue and protect the applicant’s higher pay scale, along with admissible consequential revisions, and were restrained from re-fixing his pay by withdrawing the benefit or recovering any amount on that account.

Any amount already recovered was directed to be refunded, with consequential service or retiral benefits to be worked out within three months.