Recovery From Retired Personnel Prohibited and SRO 149 Pay Protection Affirmed Under Article 14

The applicant, a 63-year-old retired employee (Class-III), challenged PPO No. 1122171860 dated 18/10/2022, which fixed his pension at a rate lower than his last pay drawn.

He sought the inclusion of benefits under SRO 149 of 1973, the release of withheld gratuity, and a prohibition against any recoveries.

The applicant asserted that he was entitled to the same pay scales and pensionary benefits previously granted to similarly situated employees in other departments.

1. Whether the respondents can legally effect recoveries from a retired Class-III employee on account of alleged excess payments?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the fixation of pension based on the last pay drawn including SRO 149 benefits to ensure parity under Article 14?

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recoveries from Class-III employees or those who have superannuated.

High Court of JK’s decision in Provincial Power Employees Union of India Ors. vs. State of JK Ors. (SWP No. 809/2021), which held that the benefit of SRO 149 cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn once extended, as doing so violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court also noted the principle of estoppel, preventing the State from taking a contrary stand after having granted and affirmed such benefits for other departments.

The Tribunal found that the controversy regarding SRO 149 had been conclusively settled by the High Court in the Provincial Power Employees Union case.

It reasoned that since the benefit of SRO 149 and subsequent revisions were granted to departments like Police and Geology Mining, denying the same to the applicant would be irrational and arbitrary.

Applying the Rafiq Masih doctrine, the Tribunal observed that the applicant, being a retired Class-III employee, is protected against any recovery of alleged excess payments.

The Tribunal further noted that the State was estopped from withdrawing benefits that were validly extended and affirmed by various Division Bench judgments.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the re-fixation of pension at a diminished rate was unsustainable in law.

The respondents were directed not to disturb the settled benefits granted under SRO 149 and to forward a revised Last Pay Certificate (LPC) to the Accountant General for the final settlement of retiral benefits on the basis of the last pay drawn. Compliance was ordered within four weeks of receipt of the order.