HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No.689/2025 CM No.1647/2025 1. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, Civil Secretariat, J&K at Jammu-180001 2. Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, Jammu-180001 3. Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti, PHE Division Nowshera-185151 4. Accountant General, Canal Road, Jammu- 180001. ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. V/s Ved Parkash S/O Sita Ram R/O Village Chowki Handan, Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri-185151. ….Respondent(s) Through :- . CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 24.03.2025 01. The present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1111/2021 tilted Ved Parkash v. Union Territory of J&K and others. 02. The respondent-applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench (hereinafter called as, “the Tribunal”) is Class-C/D employee of the Jal Shakti (Public Health Engineering) Department who was initially granted benefits under SRO 59 of 1990. On 30.06.2020, the Chief Engineer issued a circular directing verification of pay scales and benefits granted to employees under repealed statutory rules. The department discovered that the employee Sr. No.07 2 WP(C) No. 689/2025 was incorrectly granted benefits under SRO that had been repealed, specifically; SRO 59 was repealed after the enforcement of J&K Civil Service (HSPS) Rules 1996. He was also granted in situ under SRO 14 of 1996. The petitioner got retired and his pension case was sent to AG office after ignoring benefit of SRO 59 and recovery of excess amount made from his gratuity. On 05.02.2020, pension case of petitioner settled by the AG office after recovery access amount from gratuity vide GPO No.1220116470 dated 05.02.2020. On 11.02.2021, circular issued by Finance Department regarding irregularities in fixation of pay due to extension of benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 beyond date of withdrawal of SRO in works department. Aggrieved of the above circular, the respondent approached the Central Administration Tribunal and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 04.04.2024 ordered that the pension be paid to the applicant on the basis of pay, which he was getting before issuance of impugned order/circular if the applicant stood already retired. 03. Aggrieved of the action of the petitioners herein for recovery, the applicant- respondent herein approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 1111/2021, on the ground that as per law settled by the Apex Court in case of “State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih”, AIR 2015 SC 696, no recoveries against any benefit so drawn by a Class-C/D employee can be initiated, if the same has been provided by the department on their own and there is no mala fide or foul play on the part of the employees. 04. 04. Respondents-petitioners herein have admitted that the grant of benefits of higher pay scale have wrongly been granted in favour of the applicant- respondent herein and after realizing they initiated the process of recovery from them. 3 WP(C) No. 689/2025 05. The case of the applicant-respondent herein is that he has not played any fraud or mischief for receiving the benefits under SROs mentioned above, whereas, the said benefits have been granted by the writ petitioners herein voluntarily, therefore, once the benefit even if granted wrongly, the recovery for the same cannot be effected from the retirees as well as in service employees at the relevant point of time. 06. The Tribunal vide common judgment/order dated 04.04.2024 (impugned herein) has directed the writ petitioners herein not to recover any amount already paid to the applicant/respondent herein. It was further directed to the writ petitioners to refund to the applicant/respondent any amount already recovered either from salary or pension including gratuity without interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of that order. 07. Aggrieved of the order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 09. Admittedly, the benefits under SRO 59 (supra) was granted voluntarily by the writ-petitioners in favour of the applicant-respondent herein and subsequently, the said benefits have been withdrawn and initiated recovery from the salary of the respondent herein. It is not the case of the writ-petitioners that the benefits have been received by the applicant-respondent herein by way of fraud or misrepresentation. The law in this regard is well settled in various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. 10. The learned Tribunal has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 Live Law (SC) 438 titled – “Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Ors.”. The relevant paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:- 4 WP(C) No. 689/2025 “13. In State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus: “8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. …………. 18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh 5 WP(C) No. 689/2025 the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General. 15. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified.” 11. Therefore, having regard to the settled legal position, the judgment impugned passed by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned, accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment/order passed by the Tribunal. 12. In view of the above, the present writ-petition is dismissed, at the threshold even without putting to notice to the other side, along with connected application(s). Jammu: 24.03.2025 Raj Kumar ( (MA Chowdhary) Judge ) (Tashi Rabstan) Chief Justice