Post-retirement recovery from terminal benefits requires adjudication through reasoned orders following established judicial precedents.

The applicant, a retired Executive Engineer (C) from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), challenged the Pension Payment Order (PPO) No. 50116 dated 11.04.2022, which reduced his last basic pay from ₹93,800 to ₹90,300.

Following his superannuation, the respondents recovered ₹7,94,406 from his gratuity.

The applicant contended that this recovery was illegal based on the precedent in Lakshmi Chand v. DDA (OA 2978/2023).

Although the applicant submitted a written representation on 16.02.2026, the respondents failed to provide a response.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking the quashing of the recovery order, restoration of basic pay, and a refund of the recovered amount with interest.

1. Whether the respondents’ unilateral reduction of the applicant's basic pay and subsequent recovery from his gratuity post-superannuation is legally sustainable.

2. Whether a direction should be issued to the respondents to decide the applicant’s pending representation in a time-bound manner.

The Tribunal relied on the principles of natural justice and the legal position regarding post-retirement recoveries as enunciated in Lakshmi Chand v. DDA (OA 2978/2023).

It also operated under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

The court emphasized the requirement for administrative authorities to pass "reasoned and speaking orders" when disposing of representations involving financial prejudice to retired employees.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the recovery but focused on the procedural requirement of addressing the applicant’s grievance.

It noted that in similar matters (OA 553/2026, OA 872/2026, and OA 948/2026), the Tribunal had issued directions to consider pending representations.

Since the respondent’s counsel fairly conceded that the representation could be considered in accordance with the law, the Tribunal determined that the interests of justice would be served by mandating a decision in light of the Lakshmi Chand precedent.

The Tribunal underscored that the respondents must independently apply their mind and issue a formal communication to the applicant.

It directed the competent authority of the respondents to decide the applicant's pending representation dated 16.02.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The decision must specifically consider the Tribunal's order in Lakshmi Chand v. DDA and be communicated to the applicant promptly.

No costs were awarded.