Recovery of excess payments from retired Group C and D employees is impermissible under law.

Nine applicants, originally engaged as daily wagers and regularized as Road Workers/Supervisors prior to 1987, were granted higher pay grades under SRO 59 of 1990 in the year 2007

Upon their superannuation, the respondents issued a circular on 11.02.2021 requiring strict compliance with SRO 59 instructions before processing pensions

Subsequently, the Senior Accounts Officer raised objections and directed recovery of alleged excess payments made under SRO 59, leading to the withholding of the applicants' pensionary benefits via a communication dated 22.04.2024

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking a release of benefits and a restraint on recoveries

1. Whether the respondents can legally effect recoveries of alleged excess salary payments from retired Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees after their superannuation

2. Whether the withholding of pensionary benefits based on historical pay fixation errors is permissible without following the principles of natural justice

The doctrine established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recovery of wrongful payments from retired employees or those belonging to Class III/Class IV service

The principles from the High Court of J&K in Sita Ram & Ors. v. UT of J&K, which held that while the State may correct pay fixation errors, it cannot recover amounts already paid to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees at the fag end of their service or after retirement

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) instructions dated 02.03.2016, which reinforce the prohibition of such recoveries

The Court examined the applicants' contention that they played no role in the miscalculation of their pay and that recovery at this stage would cause undue hardship

While the respondents argued that SRO 59 of 1990 had been withdrawn in 1996 and that they possessed the competence to rectify erroneous pay fixations, the Tribunal balanced this against the settled legal position that recoveries against low-income earners (Class III/IV) after retirement are inequitable.

The Tribunal emphasized that any corrective action must be in consonance with the rules of natural justice, ensuring the applicants are heard

By referencing prior Tribunal orders (e.g., Ghulam Ahmad Khan v. UT of J&K), the Court indicated that the applicants were entitled to the same protective treatment regarding their post-retiral benefits

The respondents are ordered to decide the case in accordance with law, specifically taking into account the judicial precedents set in Rafiq Masih and Sita Ram v. UT of J&K

The Tribunal held that any proposed action by the respondents must strictly follow due process and the principles of natural justice and no recovery is to be effected without such compliance.

All connected Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of