Recovery from retired Class-III employees is impermissible and validly granted pensionary benefits cannot be arbitrarily reduced.

The applicants, Kuldeep Kumar and Santokh Singh, are retired employees of the Jal Shakti (Public Health Engineering) Department, aged 62 years

They challenged Pension Payment Orders (PPO No. 1122171677 and PPO No. 1122158614) which fixed their pensions at a diminished rate

The applicants sought the inclusion of pay up-gradation benefits under SRO 149 (granted to them on 01/01/2009 and 01/04/2010 respectively), the release of withheld gratuity, and a restraining order against any recoveries of alleged excess payments from their retiral benefits

The core of the dispute involves whether the benefits of SRO 149 of 1973, applicable to matriculates with ITI qualifications, could be withdrawn or recovered post-retirement

1. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to effect recoveries from or diminish the pension of retired Class-III employees on account of alleged excess payments made under SRO 149

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the re-fixation of pensionary benefits based on the pay up-gradations previously granted under SRO 149

The Tribunal primarily applied the doctrine of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, holding that benefits extended to similarly situated employees across different departments cannot be arbitrarily denied

It relied on the precedent of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in Provincial Power Employees Union of India & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (SWP No. 809/2021), which affirmed the entitlement of ITI-qualified matriculates to SRO 149 benefits

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court’s mandate in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recoveries from Class-III employees or superannuated personnel

The court also referenced Rule 242 of the Civil Services Regulations of 1956 regarding pension fixation

The Tribunal analyzed the judicial history of SRO 149, noting that the High Court had previously quashed attempts to withdraw these benefits, labeling such actions as "irrational" and "arbitrary"

It observed that since the state had already extended these benefits to employees in the Police and Geology and Mining Departments, it was estopped from taking a different stand for the applicants

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants, as retired Class-III employees, are protected by the twofold ratio of the settled law: first, that recovery from retired personnel is impermissible; and second, that validly extended benefits cannot be withdrawn to the prejudice of the employee once they have settled

Consequently, the re-fixation of pension at a diminished rate without considering SRO 149 was deemed unsustainable

The Tribunal held that no recovery can be effected from the applicants, and any amount already recovered must be refunded

The respondents were directed to forward the applicants’ documents and revised Last Pay Certificates (LPC) to the Accountant General for the final settlement of retiral benefits and re-fixation of pension based on SRO 149 within four weeks

No costs were awarded