Retrospective Revision of Pay Not Subject to Recovery Following Supreme Court Restitution of Benefits

The petitioner, an employee of the Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (APGCL), retired on March 31, 2016.

Following his retirement, the Revision of Pay (ROP) Rules, 2017, were implemented with retrospective effect from April 1, 2016.

While the authorities granted the petitioner pensionary benefits under the new rules, they failed to revise his last drawn pay for the purpose of pension calculation.

The petitioner successfully challenged this in WP(C) No. 4381/2023.

Although a Division Bench later set aside the Single Judge's order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated December 4, 2025, restored the Single Judge's judgment, holding that the petitioner was entitled to pay revision for his last drawn pay.

During the interim period of litigation, the respondents issued a Demand Notice dated November 11, 2024, seeking recovery of "excess" amounts paid to the petitioner.

1. Whether the Demand Notice for recovery of revised pensionary benefits is legally sustainable in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent restoration of the petitioner's rights to pay revision.

The court applied the principle of judicial hierarchy and the finality of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

It specifically relied on the Supreme Court's ruling dated December 4, 2025, which established that employees retired just prior to the ROP Rules 2017 are entitled to have their last pay revised for the computation of pension and are entitled to arrears with 6% interest.

The Court observed that the basis for the respondents' Demand Notice was the interim victory at the Division Bench level.

However, the legal landscape shifted significantly during the pendency of the current writ petition when the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment.

The Supreme Court expressly found that the petitioner is entitled to the pay revision and the resulting pensionary benefits. Consequently, the High Court reasoned that the Demand Notice—which characterized these legitimate payments as "excess" and sought their refund—stood "in teeth of" (in direct contradiction to) the Apex Court's findings.

The learned Government Advocate conceded that the notice could not be sustained in view of the superior court's judgment.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed Demand Notice No. MD/APGCL/PEN/M-16/184/78 dated November 11, 2024.

The respondents were effectively barred from seeking reimbursement of the amounts paid under the ROP Rules, 2017.