Recovery of alleged excess payments requires due process and a reasonable hearing.

The applicant, widow of Late Lal Ud Din Gojer, an Assistant Lineman who died in harness on 24 December 2024, challenged the proposed recovery of ₹19,72,708 from his gratuity and other retiral or pensionary benefits.

Her husband had been granted the benefit of SRO 59 of 1990 by an order dated 21 November 2016.

The respondents submitted that SRO 59 had been withdrawn in 1996 and that they could review and correct erroneous pay fixation.

They also referred to the Division Bench decision in Sita Ram & Ors. v. UT of J&K.

By consent of counsel, the Tribunal took up the application for disposal.

Whether the proposed recovery of alleged excess payment from the deceased employee’s retiral and pensionary benefits could be sustained, particularly given the principles governing recovery from Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees at or after retirement.

Whether the respondents could proceed with the proposed action without first affording the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and following due process.

The applicant relied on Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.

The respondents cited Sita Ram & Ors. v. UT of J&K, in which, as described in the order, the State could correct an erroneous pay fixation, but recovery of amounts already paid to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, particularly at the fag end of service or after retirement, was not permissible.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the cited judicial pronouncements and provide the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before taking any proposed action.

It did not determine the merits of the recovery or independently state a final rule on its permissibility.

The Tribunal did not decide whether the alleged excess payment was recoverable or whether the respondents’ proposed recovery was barred by the cited authorities.

Instead, noting the parties’ joint request for disposal, it directed the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation and determine the applicant’s case in accordance with law.

In doing so, it required the respondents to consider the cited precedents, including Sita Ram, observe due process, and afford the applicant a reasonable hearing before taking action.

The Tribunal expressly left the merits open.

The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits and made no order as to costs.