Recovery of excess pay is prohibited absent employee fraud, though prospective pension refixation remains legally permissible.

The applicant, a Road Worker aged 59, was granted the benefits of SRO 59 of 1990 effective from May 1, 1992, by the Public Works Department (R&B)

This benefit, which placed him in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1500/-, was enjoyed for over three decades

As the applicant approached superannuation (scheduled for May 31, 2026), Respondent No. 4 issued a communication on June 4, 2025, revising the applicant's pay to exclude the SRO 59 benefits and ordering the recovery of the alleged excess amount paid since 1992

The applicant challenged this order, asserting that the benefit was granted by the competent authority without any misrepresentation or fraud on his part and that the recovery was ordered without following the principles of natural justice

1. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to recover excess salary payments made over several decades in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation by the employee.

2. Whether the respondents retain the jurisdiction to refix an employee's pension prospectively if the underlying pay scale was granted erroneously.

The Tribunal relied on the principles established by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in Jamsheed Ahmad Khan v. Commissioner Secretary to Govt. & Ors. (WP(C) No. 296/2024) and Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K and others (WP(C) No. 1730/2020), which restrict the recovery of benefits from employees after a significant lapse of time

It also considered Sita Ram and others v. U.T of J&K and Ors., which affirms that while an employer may correct bona fide mistakes in pay scales, they must provide the employee an opportunity to be heard and cannot necessarily recover past payments if the mistake was not the employee's fault

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had received the benefits for more than thirty years and that the respondents did not allege any fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant in obtaining those benefits

Applying the settled legal position from the cited High Court judgments, the Tribunal reasoned that recovering long-standing excess payments from a low-ranking employee (Road Worker) near retirement would be inequitable

The Tribunal held that while the state is estopped from recovering past payments, it is "well within its right" to scrutinize the service record and refix the pension prospectively to ensure it aligns with the correct legal entitlements under the applicable rules

The respondents are authorized to refix the applicant’s pension prospectively after determining whether the SRO 59 benefits were extended rightly or wrongly

No order as to costs was made