Facts
The petitioners, former employees of the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department, superannuated in 2021
Source reference: p.2, para. 3Post-retirement, the respondent department and the Accountant General (A&E) refixed their pay and deducted excess amounts totaling ₹7,25,914/- and ₹7,86,988/- respectively
Source reference: p.2, para. 4These deductions were made on the grounds that the pay-scale benefits under SRO 59 of 1990, which the petitioners had been receiving, were erroneously extended after the SRO was rescinded in 1996
Source reference: p.2, para. 4–5The petitioners challenged these communications/orders, seeking the quashing of recoveries and the release of full pensionary benefits
Source reference: p.1-2, para. 1Issues
1. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to recover excess payments from employees after their superannuation
Source reference: p.3, para. 62. Whether the department maintains the right to refix the pay scale of an employee to correct an error, even post-retirement
Source reference: p.3, para. 6–7Law Applied
The court primarily relied on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer case) and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, which prohibit recoveries from employees after their superannuation if the excess payment was not due to any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee
Source reference: p.3, para. 6the employer has an inherent right to correct a mistake and refix pay scales, as affirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in Sita Ram v. U.T. of J&K and others (decided 04-04-2025)
Source reference: p.3, para. 7Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that while the State exchequer was unnecessarily burdened by the "erroneous and illegal drawals" facilitated by Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs) after SRO 59 was rescinded, the law protects retired employees from recovery of such sums.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Applying the Rafiq Masih doctrine, the court noted that recoveries made post-retirement are generally impermissible. However, the court distinguished between "recovery" and "refixation." Following the mandate in Sita Ram, the court reasoned that "once a mistake, always a mistake," and there is no legal bar preventing the respondents from refixing the pay scale to its correct level for the purpose of calculating future pensionary benefits, provided it aligns with established law
Source reference: p.3, para. 6-7Holding
The court held that while there is a categorical bar on recoveries after superannuation (as per the apex court's precedents mentions in para 6), the respondents are entitled to refix the pay scale.
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' case in light of the High Court judgment in Sita Ram v. U.T. of J&K. The respondents were directed to pass necessary orders within six weeks, ensuring that the petitioners' pensionary benefits are processed with promptitude if they are found to be squarely covered by the cited law
Source reference: p.4, para. 8Original Court PDF
abdul samad parray and anothervsPUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (PHE)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in