SRO 59 benefits may be excluded on pension refixation, but excess payments cannot be recovered.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Lineman/Class-IV employee, was initially engaged as a daily-wage Helper and later regularised in the Department.

During service, he was granted the benefit of SRO 59 of 1990 and placed notionally in the pay scale of Rs. 950–1500 with effect from 1 April 1996.

He retired with a last basic pay of Rs. 51,100.

While processing his pension, the respondents excluded the SRO 59 benefit and fixed his pension at Rs. 17,700 instead of the claimed Rs. 25,550.

His PPO dated 13 June 2024 was accordingly challenged, along with the withholding or adjustment of gratuity/DCRG towards alleged excess payment.

The respondents contended that the SRO 59 benefit had been wrongly granted and that, following its withdrawal and the amendment to Article 242 of the J&K Civil Services Regulations by S.O. 129 dated 28 March 2022, the applicant’s pay and pension could be refixed.

They also relied on an undertaking allegedly furnished by the applicant to refund excess payments.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the respondents could refix the applicant’s pay and pension by excluding the benefit granted under SRO 59 of 1990, notwithstanding that the higher pay had been drawn before retirement.

Whether the respondents could recover or adjust alleged excess payments made pursuant to the SRO 59 benefit from the applicant’s salary, pension, gratuity/DCRG, or other retiral benefits.

Whether the withheld gratuity/DCRG and other admissible retiral benefits were required to be released after permissible refixation.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the jurisdictional basis for the application.

It considered the effect of SRO 59 of 1990 and the amendment to Article 242 of the J&K Civil Services Regulations through S.O. 129 dated 28 March 2022, holding that an employer may correct an erroneous pay fixation and refix consequential pensionary benefits in accordance with the applicable rules.

The Tribunal primarily relied on UT of J&K & Ors. v. Maqbool Sheikh & Ors., WPI No. 936/2025 and connected matters, judgment dated 6 March 2026, which distinguished between lawful refixation and recovery: refixation of pay/pension by excluding an erroneously granted SRO 59 benefit remains permissible, but recovery of excess amounts already paid to employees is prohibited and amounts already recovered must be refunded.

The Tribunal also noted the general principles invoked by the applicant from State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel and Jagdish Prasad, but regulated the matter primarily in accordance with the subsequent jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not claim an indefeasible right to have his pension permanently calculated on the basis of the last pay actually drawn if that pay included an inadmissible SRO 59 benefit.

The respondents therefore retained authority to refix his pay and pension by excluding the wrongly granted benefit.

However, the Tribunal treated refixation as distinct from recovery.

Since the excess amounts had been paid during service and the applicant was a retired Class-IV employee, the respondents could not recover those amounts or achieve the same result indirectly by withholding or adjusting gratuity/DCRG.

The undertaking furnished during pension processing did not override the specific legal position governing SRO 59 cases.

The respondents were permitted to refix the applicant’s pay and pension by excluding the SRO 59 benefit, to the extent it was found wrongly granted, and to regulate future pensionary benefits on the basis of the lawfully admissible pay.

No recovery could be made of excess payments already received by the applicant; any amount already recovered or adjusted from salary, pension, gratuity/DCRG, or other retiral benefits was ordered to be refunded or released.

The withheld gratuity/DCRG and other admissible retiral benefits were directed to be released after permissible refixation, without adjustment towards the protected past excess payment.

The entire exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified order, with no order as to costs.