HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2483/2025 CM No. 5715/2025 UT of J&K and ors. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG v/s Kuldip Singh and ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 09.09.2025 Sanjeev Kumar J 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others to throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench [“The Tribunal”] in T.A. No. 2056 of 2020 titled, ‘Kuldip Singh & others vs. U.T. of J&K and others’ along with other connected matters, whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners not to recover any amount from the salary/pensionary benefits of the respondents and refund the amount which has already been recovered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 2. The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that benefit derived by a Government employee under a mistake cannot be retained as the same would be inequitable and would tantamount to unjust enrichment. Sr. No. 66 2 WP(C) No. 2483/2025 3. It is a case where the respondents, Class IV employees have been made to draw excess salary on account of a mistake committed by the petitioners and after their retirement, the said amount is sought to be recovered by the petitioners. Whether or not such recovery could be affected after retirement of an employee is a question no longer res integra. The judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled, ‘State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih’ AIR 2015 SC 696 and ‘Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & ors.’ 2022 Live Law (SC) 438 have authoritatively settled the legal position. 4. Having regard to the position of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and followed by this Court in a number of judgments, we do not find any scope for further debate. The Tribunal has, after consideration of the matter in the light of settled legal position and rival contentions, issued direction only with regard to recovery of the amount deducted by the petitioners from the salary and the pensionary benefits. There is no direction passed by the Tribunal restraining the petitioners to correct their mistake and re-fix the salary/pension accordingly. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 09.09.2025 Neha-II Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No NEHA KUMARI 2025.09.09 22:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document