Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Prem Singh And Ors vs Jal Shakti Department on 5 February, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 547/2025
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 547/2025
Reserved on:- 12.08.2025
Pronounced on: - 05.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
1. Prem Singh Age 62 years S/O Sh. Manti Ram R/O Dalhori Tehsil
& District Rajouri-185132.
2. Bansi Lal Age 61 years S/O Sh. Badri Nath R/O Udhan Tehsil
Budhal District Rajouri-185233.
3. Dara Singh Age 56 years S/O Sh. Daya Ram R/O Dhalhori Tehsil
& District Rajouri-185132
4. Sukhdev Singh Age 62 years S/O Sh. Radhu Ram R/O Badhal
Tehsil & District Kotranka District Rajouri- 185233.
5. Abdul Rashid Age 60 years S/O Said Mohd. R/O Ujhan Tehsil
Darhal District Rajouri-185233.
6. Mohd. Amin Age 68 Years S/O Abdul Aziz R/O Rajdhani Tehsil
Thanamandi District Rajouri-185212.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: - Mr. M.K. Raina)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 547/2025
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner-
Cum-Secretary to Government, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Jal Shakti
(PHE) Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu-180001.
2. Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Jammu
180001.
3. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Jal Shakti
Department (PHE) Civil Division Rajouri-185131.
4. Accountant General, UT of J&K Jammu-180016.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. AAG, Mr. Sumant Sudan, ld.
counsel for AG)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 547/2025
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal may, in the face of the averments made herein above and those to be urged at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal quash;
b) Order No.4587-88 dated 03.12.2024 passed by respondents in CP No.218/2024 in OA No.1450/2023 titled Prem Singh & Others V/s UT of J&K and others by virtue of which the case/ claim of the applicants has been rejected;
c) The respondents may kindly be directed not to effect any recoveries from the applicants in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih's case and judgment passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 04.04.2024 in OA No.61/1111/2021 wherein the recoveries from the Class-IV (Group C) employees has been held to be illegal. The Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 recoveries if any made from the applicants may be directed to be refunded back to the applicants;
d) That Hon'ble Tribunal may further direct the respondents not to re-fix the salaries of the applicants in the absence of affording the applicants with an opportunity of being heard and further direct the respondents to pass a speaking order in case they intend to re-fix the salaries of the applicants.
e) The Hon'ble Court may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be pleased to grant any other alternate/additional relief in favour of the applicants in order to meet the ends of justice.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicants are Class-IV employees of the Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, posted in different divisions of District Rajouri.
They claim to have rendered long, unblemished service to the satisfaction of their superiors. On account of their educational qualifications, they were extended the benefit of SRO-59 of Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 1990 and placed in the higher pay scale of ₹950-1500 on a notional basis, with effect from different dates, pursuant to judicial directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in earlier writ petitions.
b) The said benefit was granted after scrutiny of their service records by the department itself, and without any allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the applicants. The benefit so granted was duly reflected in their service books and continued uninterrupted for several years.
c) While matters stood thus, the respondents issued a general circular dated 30.06.2020, directing scrutiny of service books of employees and initiation of recoveries wherever excess payments were found. The applicants contend that the said circular was issued unilaterally, without issuing any notice to them or inviting objections.
d) Apprehending recovery and re-fixation of pay, similarly situated employees approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 668/2021, wherein this Tribunal, vide order dated 28.04.2021, directed that no recovery shall be effected from the applicants, though the respondents were permitted to re-fix pay prospectively, if permissible under rules. Any amount already recovered was directed to be refunded. The said order attained finality after dismissal of WP No. 1806/2022 by the Hon'ble High Court on 03.05.2023.
e) Further, some of the present applicants were also parties to SWP No. 2363/2016 (Sabar Hussain & Ors.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 28.10.2016, directed consideration of their claim for placement in the higher pay scale. The said judgment was implemented by the department through Order No. PHER/61 of 2018 dated 27.03.2018, granting the higher grade to the applicants.
f) Despite the above judicial pronouncements, the respondent No.3 allegedly issued recovery notices and commenced deductions from the salaries of the applicants from June 2023 Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 onwards, without issuing any show-cause notice or passing a speaking order.
g) Aggrieved, the applicants earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1450/2023, which was disposed of on 18.04.2024, directing the respondents to treat the OA as a representation and pass a reasoned order after examining whether the applicants were similarly situated to those already granted relief.
h) In purported compliance thereof, the respondents passed Order No. 4587-88 dated 03.12.2024, rejecting the claim of the applicants, holding that the benefit of SRO-59 had been wrongly extended to them in the year 2018 after its withdrawal.
i) It is this order dated 03.12.2024, along with the consequential recovery action, which is under challenge in the present OA, on the ground that the same is contrary to settled law, binding judicial precedents, and principles of natural justice Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: O.A. No. 547/2025
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) At the outset, it is contended that no statutory, legal, or fundamental right of the applicants has been infringed so as to warrant interference by this Tribunal. It is pleaded that the OA involves disputed questions of fact and lacks cause of action.
The applicants are also alleged to have suppressed material facts and approached the Tribunal without clean hands.
b) On merits, the respondents submit that upon scrutiny of service records at the divisional level, it was found that the applicants were wrongly granted the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 in the year 2018, despite the fact that SRO-59 had already been withdrawn vide Government Order No. 277-F of 2018 dated 06.06.2018. According to the respondents, at the relevant time, career progression of non-gazetted employees was governed by SRO-14 of 1996, and not by SRO-59.
c) It is further contended that in view of S.O. 129 dated 28.03.2022, whereby Article 242 of the J&K CSR was Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 amended, the restriction on checking pay correctness for the last 24 months prior to retirement does not apply where benefits under withdrawn or deleted SROs have been extended. Hence, the respondents claim authority to re-fix pay and effect recoveries, even at a later stage.
d) The respondents emphasise that the excess payments constitute public money drawn from the government exchequer, and permitting the applicants to retain the same would amount to unjust enrichment at the cost of public funds.
e) With respect to OA No. 1450/2023, it is stated that the Tribunal merely directed consideration of the applicants' case by passing a speaking order. In compliance thereof, the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 was passed, rejecting the claim after due consideration, as the applicants were not found similarly situated to those in whose favour relief had been granted earlier.
f) It is finally pleaded that the present OA is repetitive in nature, raising issues already considered earlier, and therefore deserves dismissal.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 547/2025
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. The applicants are Class-IV employees of the Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, working/retired from the Civil Division Rajouri. They claim that on account of their eligibility/qualification, they were extended the benefit of SRO-59 and placed in the higher pay scale of ₹950-1500 (notionally), and that such placement was in the wake of judicial directions and after scrutiny by the department, without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation.
6. The applicants plead that while they were drawing salary/pension peacefully, the department issued a general circular dated 30.06.2020 for scrutiny of service books and to initiate recoveries. The applicants assert that recoveries/re-fixation were set in motion without notice, without inviting objections and without a speaking order, and later deductions started from salaries. They further plead that similarly situated employees had already obtained protective orders. The applicants rely upon an order of this Tribunal dated 28.04.2021 (in a similar OA) holding that the respondents shall not Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 make recovery, though the respondents could re-fix pay structure prospectively; further, any recovery already made was to be refunded. The said order was upheld when WP No. 1806/2022 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 03.05.2023. The applicants earlier approached this Tribunal in OA No. 1450/2023, which was disposed of on 18.04.2024 with a direction to treat the OA as a representation and decide parity with similarly situated persons by passing a reasoned speaking order. In purported compliance, the respondents passed Order No. 4587-88 dated 03.12.2024 (impugned herein) rejecting the applicants' claim. The present OA seeks quashing of the said order and a restraint on recoveries, refund of amounts already recovered, and a direction that pay shall not be re-fixed without hearing/speaking order.
7. The respondents oppose the OA on preliminary objections such as absence of violation of rights, disputed questions of fact, lack of cause of action, and alleged suppression/misrepresentation. On merits, the respondents plead that scrutiny of record shows that the applicants were granted benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 in the year 2018, which Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 according to them was wrong, because career progression was governed by SRO-14 of 1996; further, SRO-59 was withdrawn pursuant to Govt. Order No. 277-F dated 06.06.2018, hence pension/salary require re-fixation by ignoring wrongly extended SRO- 59 benefit. The respondents also rely on S.O. 129 dated 28.03.2022, which amended Article 242 CSR (J&K) by stating that the limitation of 24 months preceding retirement (for checking correctness of pay emoluments by the Accountant General) shall not apply where undue benefit of deleted/withdrawn SROs/Government Orders has been granted beyond the date of deletion/withdrawal. It is contended that excess payment is public money and respondents are within their right to re-fix salary and order recoveries.
8. Learned counsel for AG, Mr. Sumant Sudan, stated that:
(i) Applicant No. 6 is a retiree of the year 2019 and his revised PPO/GPO/CPO has already been released; hence, the order qua Applicant No.6 stands complied with and his claim is rendered infructuous to that extent;
(ii) Applicant No. 3 is still in service; and Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 547/2025
(iii) the remaining applicants retired after 2019 and therefore, according to respondents, are covered by S.O.129/Article 242 CSR amendment.
9. In the above backdrop, the following issues arise:
(i) Whether recoveries from Class-IV employees/pensioners, in the facts of this case, are legally permissible, particularly in light of the law laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334;
(ii) Whether S.O. 129 dated 28.03.2022 (Article 242 CSR) empowers recoveries in derogation of the above equitable bar and binding precedent;
(iii) Whether re-fixation/revision affecting pay/pension could be done without affording opportunity and passing a speaking order;
(iv) What relief, if any, is the applicants entitled to, including refund of recovered amounts and treatment of Applicant No. 6.
10. The applicants are admittedly Class-IV (Group C/IV in the pleadings) employees of the department. Their case is that benefits were granted earlier and continued for long; recoveries started later Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 pursuant to departmental scrutiny. The law on recovery of excess payment, where the employee is low paid and there is no allegation of misrepresentation/fraud, has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein recoveries were held impermissible in certain categories including (inter alia) Class-III/Class-IV employees and retired employees, and also where recovery is sought after a long period so as to cause undue hardship. This principle has consistently been applied as an equitable restraint to protect low paid employees from harsh recoveries of amounts paid by the employer due to its own mistake.
11. In the present case, the respondents have not pleaded that the applicants obtained the benefit by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. Their case is that the benefit was "wrongly" granted due to wrong application of SRO-59 in 2018 and because SRO-59 stood withdrawn by Govt. Order No. 277-F dated 06.06.2018. Even if the respondents are correct on the rules position, the permissibility of re-fixation is one aspect, but recoveries from Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 Class-IV employees/pensioners on that basis stands on a different footing in view of Rafiq Masih.
12. The respondents have sought to rely upon S.O. 129 dated 28.03.2022 amending Article 242 CSR, to contend that the Accountant General's checking limitation of 24 months before retirement does not apply where undue benefit of withdrawn SROs/Government Orders was granted. This Tribunal is of the considered view that S.O.129 is essentially a procedural/enabling provision for scrutiny beyond 24 months in a specified class of cases; however, it cannot be read as an automatic mandate to recover, nor can it override binding constitutional/equitable limitations declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Put differently, S.O.129 may permit detection and correction, but the step of recovery must still satisfy the law declared in Rafiq Masih and related precedents, and must also conform to fairness.
13. Further, this very department's similarly situated employees have already been protected by judicial orders. The pleadings record that this Tribunal, vide order dated 28.04.2021, had held that the respondents shall not recover amounts already paid though they may Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 re-fix pay by denying higher scale prospectively; and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the challenge on 03.05.2023, thereby affirming the restraint on recovery. Once the issue of recoverability in such fact situation has been consistently disallowed by judicial orders, the department cannot pick and choose and continue recoveries from identically situated Class-IV employees, more so when the applicants assert parity and rely upon similar directions. As regards re-fixation, the applicants' grievance also is that action is being taken without notice and without a speaking order.
14. Even where the employer claims that pay fixation was erroneous, the consequences of re-fixation--particularly when it results in reduction of pay/pension and civil consequences--require adherence to principles of natural justice. Therefore, any re-fixation, if at all permissible, must be preceded by a show-cause notice, supply of calculation sheet/basis, consideration of objections, and a reasoned speaking order.
15. Coming to the statement made at the Bar: Applicant No.6 is stated to be a retiree of 2019 and his revised PPO/GPO/CPO has been released, Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 and therefore the order qua him stands complied. In view of the said statement, the OA in so far as Applicant No.6 is concerned becomes infructuous to the limited extent of release of revised pensionary documents, however, if any recovery has been effected from him, he would still be entitled to the benefit of the present adjudication on recoveries, being a retired Class-IV employee, subject to verification.
16. Applicant No.3 is still in service. Even for an in-service Class-IV employee, Rafiq Masih principles apply with full force against harsh recoveries, particularly where payment was made by employer's mistake over a long duration, and there is no fraud. The respondents may re-fix prospectively after due process, but cannot effect recovery of past payments already made.
17. The remaining applicants are stated to have retired after 2019 and are claimed by respondents to be covered by S.O.129. As held above, S.O.129 cannot be treated as a blanket license for recovery against retired Class-IV employees in derogation of the equitable bar under Rafiq Masih. Hence, even in their case, recovery is impermissible, Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 though respondents may undertake re-fixation for future pension only after following due process and subject to law.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the OA is allowed in the following manner:
a) Impugned Order No. 4587-88 dated 03.12.2024 is quashed and set aside to the extent it authorizes/justifies recovery from the applicants and to the extent it rejects the claim without applying the binding law on recoveries from Class-IV/retired employees.
b) The respondents are restrained from effecting any recovery from the salary/pensionary benefits of the applicants in respect of the alleged excess paid on account of SRO-59 benefit already extended, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334.
c) Any amount already recovered from the salary/pensionary benefits of the applicants (including Applicant No.6, if any recovery has been made) shall be refunded to them within a Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: O.A. No. 547/2025 period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. No order as to costs.
(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Judicial Member /harshit / Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV