Recovery from gratuity is unlawful without formal disciplinary inquiry and a lawful determination of pecuniary liability.

The applicant, a Professor of Economics at the University of Jammu who also served as Director of the Human Resources Development Centre (HRDC), retired on February 28, 2017

In TA 208/2025, the applicant challenged the deduction of ₹1,01,730 from his gratuity via a communication dated April 5, 2018

This recovery was based on internal committee reports regarding allegedly irregular book purchases made in 2014, for which the University later paid suppliers following ex-parte decrees from a Delhi court

No formal disciplinary inquiry was conducted prior to this recovery

In TA 217/2025, the applicant sought a writ of mandamus for re-employment (ranging from 5 months to 3 years) as per University Statutes, arguing that he continued to supervise Ph.D. scholars post-retirement and that similarly situated professors were granted such benefits

The University declined his re-employment after the Departmental Affairs Committee (DAC) did not recommend his case

1. Whether the University was legally permitted to deduct a specific sum from the applicant’s gratuity post-retirement based solely on internal committee recommendations without conducting a formal disciplinary proceeding or inquiry.

2. Whether the applicant possessed a vested legal right to re-employment or service extension under the University Statutes, or if such engagement remained at the absolute discretion of the competent authority.

The Tribunal considered Rule 168-AA of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, which pertains to recoveries from pensionary benefits

It applied the principle that retiral benefits, specifically gratuity, are valuable statutory rights that cannot be withheld or reduced without following the principles of natural justice and established due process, such as a formal disciplinary inquiry to fix pecuniary liability

Regarding re-employment, the Tribunal relied on the interpretation of University Statutes, noting that the use of discretionary language ("may be re-employed" or "at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor") signifies an enabling power rather than an automatic entitlement

It further noted that "negative equality" is not a recognized principle in service law and discretionary benefits cannot be claimed as a matter of right

Regarding TA 208/2025, the Tribunal observed that the recovery from the applicant's gratuity was not preceded by a charge-sheet or a regular inquiry, but relied on internal fact-finding reports which cannot substitute a lawful determination of misconduct

The Tribunal noted that the University failed to effectively contest the civil suits or settle the matter while the applicant was still in service, and could not later pass the financial burden to a retired employee without establishing liability through due process

Rule 168-AA does not grant unguided power to effect recoveries in the absence of a legally sustainable finding of loss

Regarding TA 217/2025, the Tribunal held that re-employment is not a vested right

The record demonstrated that the Vice-Chancellor did not act mechanically but had the applicant's case reconsidered and explored alternative placements

The mere continuation of transitional academic duties, such as supervising scholars, does not constitute a "deemed" contract of re-employment

Consequently, the decision to decline re-employment was within administrative discretion and was not shown to be tainted by mala fides

In TA 208/2025, it held that the deduction from the applicant’s gratuity was unsustainable in the absence of a valid adjudication of liability

It quashed the order dated April 5, 2018, and directed the respondents to refund ₹1,01,730 to the applicant within 12 weeks

In TA 217/2025, the Tribunal dismissed the claims, holding that the applicant had no enforceable right to re-employment or extension as the matter fell within the discretionary powers of the Vice-Chancellor, which had been duly exercised after consideration

No order as to costs was made