Facts
The applicants were employed as Assistant Linemen in the Jal Shakti Department and retired on 31.12.2022 and 30.04.2023, respectively
Source reference: p. 3Prior to retirement, they claimed their last pay drawn was approximately ₹83,987, but the respondent No. 4 (Executive Engineer) fixed their pension based on a lower pay of ₹52,000
Source reference: p. 3-4The applicants challenged the rejection orders dated 03-05-2024, which denied their claims for higher pension fixation and retiral benefits
Source reference: p. 4This was the second round of litigation; the first round ended with a direction to the respondents to treat the applications as representations, which were subsequently rejected
Source reference: p. 4-5The applicants argued that the respondents misinterpreted High Court judgments and ignored Article 242 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (CSR)
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the respondents can legally effect recovery of alleged excess payments from retired Class-III employees
Source reference: p. 8-9, 102. Whether the benefits granted under SRO 149 and SRO 59 can be arbitrarily withdrawn or used to reduce pension fixation post-retirement
Source reference: p. 6, 10-11Law Applied
Article 242 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations
Source reference: p. 2principles governing SRO 149 of 1973 and SRO 59
Source reference: p. 6, 10precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in UT of J&K & Ors. vs. Maqbool Sheikh & Ors. (WP(C) No. 936/2025), which prohibited recovery of excess payments from employees but allowed pay re-fixation in specific SRO 59 cases
Source reference: p. 6Provincial Power Employees Union of India & Ors. vs. State of J&K, which established that recoveries from Class-III and retired employees are impermissible and that the State is estopped from withdrawing SRO 149 benefits after long-term extension
Source reference: p. 8-9dismissal of the State's appeal by the Supreme Court in State of J&K & Ors. vs. Provincial Power Employees Union & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7992/2022)
Source reference: p. 10Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the legal controversy was res integra (already settled) by superior courts
Source reference: p. 5It reasoned that under the established ratio, recoveries from Class-III staff and retired personnel are strictly prohibited
Source reference: p. 9, 11The Tribunal distinguished between SRO 59 and SRO 149, stating that while re-fixation is permissible for SRO 59 benefits erroneously granted, SRO 149 benefits, once validly extended, cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily to the prejudice of the employee
Source reference: p. 10-11The court found that depriving the applicants of these benefits would be irrational, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, especially since such benefits were extended to various other departments
Source reference: p. 9-10Consequently, the respondents' action to disturb the settled benefits and seek recovery was found to be unsustainable
Source reference: p. 11Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Applications and held that no recovery could be effected from the applicants
It directed the respondents to refund any amount already recovered and to settle the applicants' cases for retiral benefits and pension fixation in accordance with the last pay drawn, strictly following the mandates of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of J&K
Source reference: p. 11Original Court PDF
MANGTA RATHERvsJAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in