Recovery from retiral benefits after superannuation must be adjudicated in light of settled judicial precedents.

The applicant, a retired Executive Engineer (C) from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), challenged the PPO No. 9466 dated 19.12.2019

Upon his superannuation, the respondents reduced his basic pay from ₹88,400 to ₹85,100 and subsequently recovered ₹4,57,311 from his gratuity

The applicant contended that such recovery post-retirement is illegal and contrary to established judicial precedents

He submitted a written representation dated 19.12.2025 against this action, which remained undecided by the respondents

Consequently, the applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) seeking restoration of his pay, refund of the recovered amount with interest, and revision of his retiral benefits

1. Whether the recovery of excess payments from the gratuity of a retired employee after superannuation is legally permissible

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to decide the applicant's pending representation in light of prior judicial rulings on similar matters

The Tribunal relied on the principles governing the recovery of dues from retired employees as established in a catena of judgments, specifically citing the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Lakshmi Chand v. DDA (OA 2978/2023) dated 12.03.2025

Procedurally, the Tribunal followed the approach adopted in OA 553/2026 (Order dated 13.02.2026) and OA 872/2026 (Order dated 11.03.2026), which mandates that administrative authorities must consider pending representations and pass reasoned and speaking orders in accordance with law and existing precedents

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s grievance centered on the arbitrary reduction of pay and recovery of funds post-retirement, which he claimed was barred by the ruling in Lakshmi Chand v. DDA

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the recovery at the admission stage, the Tribunal focused on the procedural lapse regarding the applicant's undecided representation dated 19.12.2025

Applying the principles of natural justice and maintaining consistency with its own recent orders in similar OAs, the Tribunal noted that the interests of justice would be served by directing the competent authority to address the representation

The court emphasized that the authority must evaluate the applicant's claims specifically through the lens of the Lakshmi Chand judgment to ensure legal consistency in the treatment of retired DDA employees

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 19.12.2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order in light of the judgment in Lakshmi Chand v. DDA (OA 2978/2023)

This exercise must be completed within four weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of the order

Pending MAs were disposed of, and no costs were awarded