Recovery of excess salary and withholding of pensionary benefits from retired employees under SRO 149 is legally impermissible.

The applicants are retired Works Supervisors of the respondent department (R Kashmir).

During their service, they were granted pay benefits under SRO 149 of 1973 based on having seven years of trade experience and five years of field experience, reportedly pursuant to prior High Court directions.

Following their retirement, the Principal Accountant General and Deputy Accountant General (Pension) (Respondents 6 and 7) directed the department to recover alleged "excess amounts" paid under the said SRO and to exclude pay revision benefits from their pension calculations.

The applicants challenged these recovery orders and the withholding of pensionary benefits (gratuity, leave salary, etc.), contending the actions were without jurisdiction.

Procedurally, the Tribunal allowed M.A. No. 259/2026, permitting the applicants to file the O.A. in a joint capacity.

1. Whether the respondents can legally recover alleged excess payments made under SRO 149 of 1973 from retired employees and withhold their terminal benefits?

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of precedents set by the Tribunal and the High Court in identical matters involving the same SRO?

The Tribunal relied on the principle of parity and judicial consistency regarding the recovery of excess payments from retired employees.

Precedent of Mohd. Rafiq Khan Ors. v. Union Territory of JK Ors. (O.A. No. 562/2024).

Precedent of Mehraj-u-Din Gashro Ors. v. U.T of JK Ors. (OA No. 1297/2021).

Hon’ble High Court of JK and Ladakh’s judgment in Manzoor Ahmad Shah v. UT of JK Ors. (WP (C) No. 2313/2021).

These rulings restrict the state from recovering payments from similarly situated retired employees where the benefits under SRO 149 of 1973 were granted and later disputed on technical or jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal focused on the applicants' limited prayer: a request for the respondents to consider their claims in light of established judicial precedents rather than a full adjudication on the merits at this stage.

The Court noted that the applicants were retired employees who had already received the benefits of SRO 149 of 1973 during their tenure.

By referencing the High Court’s decision in Manzoor Ahmad Shah, the Tribunal acknowledged a legal threshold that prevents arbitrary recovery from pensioners in similar circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that if the applicants are indeed "similarly situated" and their claim is "squarely covered" by the cited judgments, the respondents are obligated to provide the same relief, provided there is no distinct legal impediment.

This consideration must be conducted in accordance with law and the specific precedents of Mohd. Rafiq Khan (O.A. 562/2024), Mehraj-u-Din Gashro (OA 1297/2021), and Manzoor Ahmad Shah (WP(C) 2313/2021).

The respondents were ordered to ensure compliance within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified order.

No order as to costs was made.