Recovery of SRO 149 benefits from retired or Class-III employees is impermissible and violates Article 14.

The applicant, a 61-year-old retired employee of the PWD (R) Department, challenged Pension Payment Order (PPO) No. 1123176156, which fixed his pension at a rate lower than his last pay drawn.

The reduction stemmed from the respondents’ decision to exclude pay benefits previously granted under SRO 149 of 1973.

The applicant sought the quashing of the PPO, release of withheld gratuity, re-fixation of pension based on his last pay, and protection against any recoveries of alleged excess payments made during his service.

1. Whether the respondents can legally effect recoveries from a retired Class-III employee on account of alleged excess payments derived from SRO 149.

2. Whether the benefit of SRO 149, once extended and affirmed by judicial precedent, can be arbitrarily withdrawn to the prejudice of the employee.

The Tribunal primarily applied the doctrine of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, asserting that similar benefits must be extended to similarly situated employees.

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of JK in Provincial Power Employees Union of India Ors. vs. State of JK Ors. (2017), which settled the entitlement of matriculate ITI diploma holders to SRO 149 benefits.

Furthermore, the Tribunal applied the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, which prohibits recoveries from Class-III employees or retired personnel.

The Tribunal noted that the legal disputes regarding SRO 149 had transitioned into settled law through various High Court rulings, including Jamshed Ahmed’s case and Provincial Power Employees Union.

The court reasoned that since the State had previously granted these benefits to departments like Police and Geology/Mining—and such grants were upheld by Division Benches—the State was now "estopped" from taking a contrary position.

Applying the Rafiq Masih ratio, the Tribunal found that the applicant, as a retired Class-III employee, was legally protected from any financial recovery.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents’ action in diminishing the pension was arbitrary and irrational because it failed to account for the fact that the pay scales were linked to valid qualifications (matriculation and ITI certificate) as recognized in Chaman Lal vs. State of Haryana.

The respondents were directed to: (i) refrain from making any recoveries and refund any amount already recovered; (ii) re-fix the applicant's pension based on his last pay drawn; and (iii) forward a revised Last Pay Certificate (LPC) to the Accountant General for final settlement of all retiral benefits, including withheld gratuity, within four weeks.

No costs were awarded.