Recovery of excess pay is prohibited, but employers may re-fix pension by excluding erroneous benefits.

The applicant, Om Parkash, superannuated on March 31, 2024, from the Jal Shakti (PHE) Department in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + 2800.

While departmental respondents (Nos. 1–4) recommended settling his pension based on his last pay drawn, the Principal Accountant General (Respondent No. 5) settled the pension on a lower scale.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 issued Order No. JSPHEMK/3487-89 dated March 25, 2025, rejecting the applicant’s representation and directing the recovery of "excess amount" drawn by him.

The applicant challenged this recovery and the downward re-fixation of his pension and gratuity.

1. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to recover excess payments already disbursed to an employee following superannuation.

2. Whether the respondents maintain the liberty to re-fix pay and pension if the original benefits were granted erroneously.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the legal principles established by the Hon’ble High Court of JK in UT of JK Ors. v. Maqbool Sheikh Ors. (WP(C) No. 936/2025), dated March 6, 2026.

This precedent establishes that while the state is prohibited from effecting any recovery of excess amounts already paid to employees, it retains the liberty to re-fix pay or pension by excluding benefits that were "wrongly granted".

The Tribunal applied the Maqbool Sheikh precedent to the facts of the applicant's case, noting that the High Court had explicitly "prohibited the recovery of any excess payment already disbursed" and mandated that any amount already recovered must be refunded.

The Tribunal balanced this by acknowledging that the respondents have the right to undertake a corrective re-fixation of the applicant’s pay and pension.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s entitlement to gratuity and pension must be determined not necessarily by the last pay actually received, but by the "revised pay fixed after implementation" of the High Court’s directions regarding erroneous benefits.

The respondents were ordered to determine the gratuity based on the revised pay scale (following the re-fixation of erroneous benefits) within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the order.

No order was made as to costs.