Recovery of alleged excess payment from pensioners cannot be effected without due process.

The applicant, Saja Begum, whose services as a daily wager were regularized prior to 1987, was placed in a lower grade.

The Government subsequently issued SRO 59 of 1990, upgrading this class of employees.

When the benefit of SRO 59 of 1990 was not extended, the applicant filed SWP No. 2327/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court, which was decided on November 23, 2016.

Following this, the parent department extended the benefit of SRO 59 of 1990, and arrears were released.

However, after approximately seven years, the Accountant General's office directed the parent department to recover the amount as allegedly paid in excess.

Consequently, recovery proceedings were initiated in 2021 based on a communication issued that year.

The applicant sought a direction to prevent the recovery of the alleged excess amount and to release unpaid pensionary benefits under SRO 59 of 1990.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed not to recover the alleged excess amount paid to the applicant.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to release the unpaid pensionary benefits under SRO 59 of 1990 dated February 6, 1990, to the applicant.

The court primarily applied the legal principle that administrative authorities, when petitioned, must consider the claim of the applicant in accordance with applicable law and rules.

It also relied on the precedent set by specific previous orders and judgments related to similar claims, including the order in O.A. No. 1190/2025 titled Ab. Hamid Baba & Ors. vs. UT of J&K & Ors. (dated October 16, 2025).

The judgment in WP(C) No. 296/2024 titled Jamsheed Ahmad Khan vs. Commissioner/Secretary to Government & Ors. (dated August 28, 2024).

And the order in O.A. No. 1516/2025 titled Abdul Majeed Kuloo vs. Public Works Department (R&B) (dated January 1, 2026).

These prior decisions likely established guidelines or principles regarding the recovery of excess payments and the release of pensionary benefits under SRO 59 of 1990.

The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, found it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the applicant's claim.

This directive acknowledged that the applicant sought relief based on previous judicial pronouncements.

The court's reasoning was that the specific prayers regarding non-recovery and release of pensionary benefits should be reviewed by the respondents.

The application of the rule of law was evident in the instruction to consider the claim "in accordance with law, applicable rules, and the entitlement of the applicant, if any," and particularly in light of the cited previous orders and judgments, provided there is no legal impediment.

This indicates that the court expected the respondents to apply the principles and findings from those cases to the current applicant’s situation.

The respondents are directed to consider the applicant's claim regarding the non-recovery of the alleged excess amount and the release of unpaid pensionary benefits under SRO 59 of 1990.

This consideration must be in accordance with law, applicable rules, and the applicant's entitlement, specifically taking into account the order dated October 16, 2025, in O.A. No. 1190/2025, the judgment dated August 28, 2024, in WP(C) No. 296/2024, and the order dated January 1, 2026, in O.A. No. 1516/2025.

The needful is to be done within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, provided there is no legal impediment.

There shall be no order as to costs.