Recovery of excess payments from Group C and D employees is impermissible, though pay re-fixation remains valid.

The Petitioners (UT of J&K) challenged various orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu, which had quashed recovery proceedings and directed the restoration of pay/pension for employees (Respondents) who had allegedly received "dual benefits" under both SRO 59 of 1990 and SRO 14 of 1996.

The Government contended that SRO 14 (providing in-situ promotions) superseded SRO 59, making the simultaneous drawal of higher pay scales illegal.

The Respondents, comprising Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, argued that Government Instruction No. 1 to Article 242 of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) barred the state from re-opening emolument records older than 24 months preceding retirement.

The Court applied Article 242 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR), specifically Instruction No. 1, which generally limits pay verification to 24 months prior to retirement, and the newly inserted Instruction No. 2 (via S.O. 129 of 2022), which waives this limit for "undue benefits" from deleted/withdrawn SROs.

It relied on the principle from Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) that relief against recovery is an equitable discretion.

Most significantly, it applied the criteria established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015), which prohibits recovery from Group ‘C’/‘D’ employees or where excess payment exceeded five years.

The Court reasoned that "correctness of emoluments" under Instruction No. 1 usually refers to individual clerical or arithmetical errors, but does not grant a vested right to "unjust enrichment" through dual benefits intended to be mutually exclusive.

While S.O. 129 explicitly allows the Government to look beyond the 24-month window for withdrawn SROs, the Court held that even a mistake does not entitle an employee to perpetual future benefits.

However, regarding the recovery of past payments, the Court found that the Respondents were Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees who had received these benefits for decades due to administrative logic lapses.

Applying the Rafiq Masih guidelines, the Court determined that recovering these sums now would be "iniquitous" and cause "undue and inequitable hardship" as the funds were likely spent on essential needs.

The Petitioners are at liberty to re-fix the current pay/pension of the Respondents by excluding the wrongly granted dual benefits moving forward.

The Petitioners are restrained from effecting any recovery of the excess amounts already paid, and any amounts already recovered must be refunded within the period prescribed by the Tribunal.