Recovery of excess payments from retired Group ‘B’ employees at the time of superannuation is impermissible.

The applicant, a retired PGT (History) teacher who superannuated on January 31, 2024, challenged the recovery/withholding of ₹4,38,614 from her gratuity

The recovery was initiated at the "fag end" of her career

The applicant filed a representation dated February 23, 2026, seeking a refund of the deducted amount with interest, which remained pending with the respondents

The applicant approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a declaration that the recovery was illegal and a direction for a full refund

1. Whether the respondents’ action of recovering the amount from the applicant’s retirement benefits is permissible in light of established judicial precedents regarding recoveries from retired employees

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to decide the applicant’s pending representation within a specified timeframe

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

legal principles established in Jogeswar Sahoo v. The District Judge, Cuttack, (2025) 5 SCR 13, which restricts recoveries from employees at the end of their service career or post-retirement

principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement for administrative authorities to pass reasoned and speaking orders on employee representations

The applicant argued that the recovery of over four lakh rupees at the time of retirement was impermissible under the law established by the Supreme Court in the Jogeswar Sahoo case

During the hearing, the applicant limited the prayer to a request for a time-bound disposal of her pending representation

The respondents did not object to this limited prayer and agreed to consider the representation in accordance with the law

The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of the recovery itself, determined that the interests of justice would be served by ensuring the executive branch exercised its administrative duty to adjudicate the pending claim through a formal order

The Tribunal held that if the decision is in favor of the applicant, the respondents must disburse the claim immediately; if unfavorable, the applicant retains the liberty to approach the appropriate forum

No order was made as to costs