Recovery from retired or Class-III employees is impermissible and the benefit of SRO 149 cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn.

The applicant, a 63-year-old retired employee of the Irrigation Flood Control Department, filed an Original Application challenging the respondents’ action of paying him a "diminished pension".

The applicant further alleged that his gratuity was illegally withheld without an opportunity for a hearing or soliciting objections.

He sought the inclusion of benefits under SRO 149 of 1973, re-fixation of pensionary benefits, and the release of withheld gratuity with 8% interest.

The dispute centers on the applicability of SRO 149, which provides higher pay scales for matriculate employees holding ITI diplomas/certificates.

1. Whether the respondents can legally withhold or diminish the applicant’s pension and gratuity without a prior hearing

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of SRO 149 and subsequent pay revisions for the purpose of pension fixation

3. Whether recovery of alleged excess payments is permissible from a retired Class-III employee

The Tribunal primarily relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of JK in Provincial Power Employees Union of India Ors. vs. State of JK Ors. (SWP No. 809/2021), which affirmed that the benefit of SRO 149 of 1973 applies to similarly situated employees who are matriculate and hold ITI certificates.

It applied the principle of negative estoppel, noting the government had granted this benefit to other departments like Police and Geology Mining.

Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (2022), which prohibits recovery of excess payments from Class-III employees or superannuated personnel.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute regarding SRO 149 has been settled by the High Court, which quashed previous orders withdrawing such benefits.

The Tribunal reasoned that denying the applicant these benefits while extending them to other similarly placed employees across various departments constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality) as it is arbitrary and irrational.

It further observed that since the applicant is a retired employee, any attempt to recover alleged overpayments or re-fix pay/pension to his detriment is impermissible under the Rafiq Masih guidelines.

The Tribunal emphasized that once benefits are validly extended, they cannot be disturbed in a manner that prejudices the retired employee.

The Tribunal directed the respondents: (i) not to effect any recovery from the applicant and refund any amount already recovered; (ii) to forward all documents and a revised Last Pay Certificate (LPC) to the Accountant General for final settlement of retiral benefits in terms of the High Court’s judgment; and (iii) to complete this process within four weeks of receiving the order.