HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2185/2025 CAV No. 1146/2025 UT of J&K & Ors. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. vs Mohinder Singh .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 11.08.2025 CAV No. 1146/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the caveator. 2. Caveat stands discharged. WP(C) No. 2185/2025 1. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners is directed against an order/judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 855/2024 titled Mohinder Singh Vs. UT of J&K and Ors., whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA of the respondent and directed the petitioners herein not to effect recoveries from the respondent in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih’s case. The Tribunal has also directed the petitioners herein to release all the retiral benefits, including gratuity and fix and disburse the pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by him at the time of his superannuation. 2. The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the Tribunal, without holding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of SRO 59 and SRO 231, has virtually set aside Serial No. 38 2 WP(C) No. 2185/2025 the impugned order insofar as re-fixation of post-retiral benefits are concerned. 3. Mr. Kapil Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, fairly states that the issue raised in the OA for adjudication has not been adjudicated by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has proceeded on assumption that the benefit granted to the respondent under SRO 59 and SRO 231 was erroneous and no recoveries could be effected at the fag end of the career or after superannuation of a small time employee. 4. He submits that the case of the respondent is that the benefit of SROs aforesaid was granted to him correctly and in accordance with the law and therefore, there was no question of either refixation of pension or recovery of arrears. 5. In view of the clear stand taken by learned counsel, this petition is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication 6. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 22.09.2025. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge Jammu 11.08.2025 Vishal Sharma