Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Balbir Singh vs Department Of Phe on 5 February, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 1337/2024
Reserved on:- 21.07.2025
Pronounced on: - 05.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Balbir Singh Sto Sh. Sansar Singh
R/o Village Basant Garh,
Tehsil Ramnagar District Udhampur- 182101.
Age:-61 Years.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Kapil Gupta)
VERSUS
1. U. T. of Jammu and Kashmir
Through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Jal Shakti.
Public Health Engineering Department,
Civil Secretariat
At present at Jammu-180001.
Mobile No. 01912546229
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024
[email protected]
2. Chief Engineer,
Jal Shakti (Public Health Engineering Department), Jammu-180001.
Mob. No. 9419129108
[email protected].
3. Executive Engineer,
Jal Shakti (Public Health Engineering) Civil Division, Udhampur-
182101.
3.Accountant General,
Canal Road, Jammu-180001.
01912477314
[email protected]
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has 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 the PPO No. 1123175927 dated 06/03/2023 to the extent it fixes the pension of the applicant at diminished rate than the last pay drawn by the applicant.
b) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further direct the respondents to release all the retiral benefits including the withheld gratuity and fix and disburse pension in favour of the applicant on the basis of last pay drawn by him at the time of his superannuation and to pay the arrears of the pension while taking into consideration Rule 242 of the Civil Services Regulations of 1956 read with the various judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024 Supreme Court of India read with the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu in State of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih.
c) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further direct the respondents to release the arrears of the pension as well.
d) The Hon'ble Tribunal may also direct the respondents not to effect any recoveries from the applicant.
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 applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicant was initially engaged as a Helper on daily wage basis in the Public Health Engineering Department and was subsequently brought on the regular establishment of the department. During the entire tenure of his service, the applicant claims to have discharged his duties to the satisfaction Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024 of his superiors and maintained an unblemished service record.
In terms of the eligibility accrued to him and pursuant to judicial directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in SWP No. 2659/2015, the applicant was placed notionally in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 18.03.1993. Necessary entries to this effect were made in the service book, which remained unaltered throughout his service career.
b) The applicant superannuated from service on 28.02.2023 while working as Assistant Lineman, a Class-IV post. Upon his retirement, his case was forwarded to the office of the Accountant General for fixation of pension and release of retiral benefits. However, the pension of the applicant was fixed at a reduced rate, not on the basis of the last pay drawn by him at the time of retirement. According to the applicant, despite drawing a higher pay at the time of superannuation, his pension was fixed at Rs. 18,500/- approximately, which was substantially lower than what was admissible under the rules. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024
c) It is further the grievance of the applicant that his gratuity has been wholly withheld and no gratuity payment order was issued by the competent authority. The respondents, according to the applicant, were under a statutory obligation to finalize and release gratuity in accordance with the Civil Services Regulations, particularly Rule 242, which restricts reopening of service matters beyond a period of twenty-four months prior to retirement. The applicant asserts that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and illegally by revisiting settled service benefits after retirement and by fixing pension on a lower scale, despite there being no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on his part.
d) The applicant has further pleaded that similarly situated employees, who were granted notional placement and higher pay scales in the same manner, have been extended full retiral benefits, including gratuity and pension based on last pay drawn, without any recovery. The action of the respondents, therefore, is alleged to be discriminatory and violative of Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024 Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, to contend that no recovery could be effected from a retired Class-IV employee in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
e) Aggrieved by the fixation of reduced pension and withholding of gratuity, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking quashment of the pension payment order to that extent and release of full retiral benefits.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents, while raising preliminary objections, have contended that the present Original Application does not disclose infringement of any legal or statutory right and is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. It has been alleged that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed material facts relating to excess drawal of pay during service.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024
b) On merits, the respondents have stated that the applicant was initially engaged as a daily wager on 08.10.1985 and was regularized as Helper with effect from 01.04.1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 pursuant to Government Order No. 571 of 1994. Thereafter, the applicant was granted benefits of in-situ promotions under SRO-14 of 1996 from time to time, including first, second, and third in-situ promotions, culminating in placement in Pay Level-2 (Rs. 19900-63200) with effect from 01.02.2017. The designation of the applicant was also changed from Helper to Assistant Lineman in his own pay and grade vide Government Order dated 17.03.2006.
c) It is the case of the respondents that the applicant was also granted notional benefits under SRO-59 of 1990 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 with effect from 01.04.1997. However, at the time of grant of such benefit, the applicant executed an affidavit undertaking to refund the financial benefits in the event of reversal or modification of the order granting such benefit. Subsequently, the benefit of SRO-59 was withdrawn by Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024 the Government vide Order dated 06.06.2018, and the pay of the applicant was accordingly refixed.
d) The respondents have further pleaded that the applicant retired on 28.02.2023 and his last pay drawn was Rs. 37,200/-. On the basis of the due-drawn statement submitted to the Accountant General, his pension was fixed vide PPO dated 06.03.2023 at Rs. 18,600/-. The gratuity amount was withheld on account of recovery of excess pay drawn by the applicant during service due to erroneous grant of financial benefits.
e) It has been asserted that the applicant was granted multiple financial upgradations over different periods due to misinterpretation of service rules applicable to Class-IV employees. Upon scrutiny, it was found that the applicant was not legally entitled to some of the benefits extended to him, and therefore recovery orders were issued to safeguard public funds. According to the respondents, erroneous pay fixation does not confer any vested right, and the State is legally bound to rectify Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024 financial irregularities to prevent undue burden on the public exchequer.
f) The respondents have thus justified the withholding of gratuity and fixation of pension on the revised pay, contending that the applicant cannot claim protection for benefits wrongly granted and that the present application deserves dismissal in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. The admitted position emerging from the record is that the applicant entered service as a daily wager, was subsequently regularised, and thereafter continued in service without any blemish till his superannuation on 28.02.2023. It is also not in dispute that during the course of service, the applicant was granted various pay benefits and in-situ promotions by the department itself through formal orders passed by the competent authorities. The entries reflecting such benefits were duly incorporated in the service book and remained operative throughout the service tenure of the applicant. At no point of Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024 time during service were these benefits withdrawn, altered or cancelled.
6. The controversy has arisen only after the retirement of the applicant, when the respondents, while fixing pension and settling retiral benefits, have reduced the pension by re-opening the pay fixation and have withheld the gratuity on the ground of alleged excess payment. Such an approach, in the considered view of this Tribunal, is impermissible both in law and on equity.
7. Rule 242 of the Civil Services Regulations, 1956, specifically mandates that verification of service and emoluments for pensionary purposes shall not, in any case, extend beyond a maximum period of twenty-four months preceding the date of retirement. The object of this rule is to ensure certainty and finality in service matters and to protect a retiring employee from post-retirement financial insecurity. In the present case, the respondents have admittedly reopened the service benefits of the applicant extending far beyond the permissible period under Rule 242, which is clearly contrary to the statutory mandate.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024
8. Equally significant is the fact that there is no allegation, much less proof, of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts on the part of the applicant. The excess, if any, has arisen solely on account of administrative decisions taken by the department itself. The applicant merely received salary in accordance with pay fixation orders passed by the competent authority and cannot be faulted for the same.
9. The law on the issue of recovery from retired employees, particularly Class-IV employees, is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, has categorically held that recovery from retired employees, or employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service, is impermissible when the excess payment is not attributable to any fraud or misrepresentation. The Apex Court has further held that such recoveries cause undue hardship and violate principles of fairness and equity.
10. The applicant squarely falls within the protective umbrella laid down in Rafiq Masih. He retired as a Class-IV employee, the benefits were granted long ago, and the recovery is sought to be effected only after Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024 retirement by withholding gratuity and reducing pension. Such action is legally unsustainable.
11. This Tribunal has, on numerous occasions, consistently followed the ratio of Rafiq Masih and has held that pension must be fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn at the time of retirement, and gratuity cannot be withheld merely on the ground of alleged excess payment arising from departmental error, particularly when the employee has already superannuated. The principle of parity also applies in the present case, as similarly situated employees in the same division have admittedly been granted pension and gratuity on the basis of last pay drawn without any recovery.
12. The contention of the respondents that erroneous pay fixation does not create a vested right is legally correct in abstract, but cannot be applied mechanically in post-retirement cases in disregard of statutory protections, binding judicial precedents, and settled service benefits. Administrative errors cannot be corrected at the cost of a retired employee's livelihood, especially when the rules themselves prohibit reopening of service matters beyond a fixed period. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents in fixing the pension of the applicant at a reduced rate and withholding gratuity is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Rule 242 of CSR, as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih.
14. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned Pension Payment Order, insofar as it fixes the pension of the applicant at a rate lower than the last pay drawn by him at the time of superannuation, is quashed.
15. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of the applicant strictly on the basis of the last pay drawn at the time of retirement and to release all consequential arrears of pension.
16. The respondents are further directed to release the withheld gratuity and all other admissible retiral benefits in favour of the applicant. It is made clear that no recovery shall be effected from the applicant on account of alleged excess payment, in view of the settled law laid down in Rafiq Masih.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: O.A. No. 1337/2024
17. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV