Recovery from superannuated Class-III employees is prohibited and pay benefits under SRO 149 are protected.

The applicant, a 63-year-old retired employee of the Public Works Department (R), filed this application seeking to quash a communication dated January 3, 2025.

The applicant sought the inclusion of pay upgradation benefits under SRO 149 of 1973 (pay scale Rs. 4000-6000) and the subsequent refixation of his pensionary benefits.

Additionally, the applicant sought to restrain the respondents from effecting any recovery of alleged excess payments made under the said SRO.

The dispute centers on whether the benefits of SRO 149, previously extended to the applicant and similarly situated employees in other departments, could be ignored or withdrawn post-retirement.

1. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to effect recovery of alleged excess payments from a retired Class-III employee.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the inclusion of SRO 149 benefits and subsequent pension refixation based on the principle of parity and Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of J in Provincial Power Employees Union of India Ors. vs. State of J Ors. (SWP No. 809/2021), which settled the entitlement of matriculate ITI diploma holders to SRO 149 benefits.

It applied the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, noting that pay scales may be linked to qualifications.

The Tribunal further invoked the doctrine of estoppel against the State regarding the withdrawal of benefits already granted and affirmed in previous litigations.

Crucially, it applied the ratio of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, which prohibits the recovery of excess payments from Class-III employees or those who have superannuated.

The Tribunal observed that the legal standing of SRO 149 had been conclusively settled by the High Court, which held that depriving eligible employees of these benefits is irrational, arbitrary, and discriminatory.

The court noted that because the State had extended these benefits to employees in other departments (such as Police and Geology and Mining), it could not now take a different stand against the applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant, as a retired Class-III employee, is protected from recovery under the Rafiq Masih guidelines.

It concluded that once a benefit is validly extended, its arbitrary withdrawal to the prejudice of the employee is unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to refrain from any recovery, refund any amount already recovered, and forward a revised Last Pay Certificate (LPC) to the Accountant General for the final settlement of retiral benefits within four weeks.

The communication dated January 3, 2025, was effectively annulled insofar as it sought to disturb the applicant's settled benefits.