Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Bhola Nath vs Jal Shakti Department on 12 February, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 789/2025
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 789/2025
Reserved on:- 10.10.2025
Pronounced on: - 12.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Bhola Nath, Age 60 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Rattan,
R/o Village Garha Satura, Tehsil Hiranagar,
District Kathua (184102)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Siddhant Gupta)
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of J&K
Through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.,
Jal Shakti Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu-180001
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 789/2025
2. Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti Department, Jal Bhawan, Narwal,
Jammu-180006
3. Executive Engineer, PHE Mech Division, Jal Shakti Department,
Kathua-184101
4, Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jammu-181121
...Respondents
(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thapa, Ld. AAG, Mr. Sahil Koul, ld.
counsel for AG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 789/2025
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) allow the instant Original Application;
b) quash PPO No. 1124190982 dated 30.08.2024 issued by
respondent no. 4 to the extent it fixes the pension of the applicant at a diminished rate than the last pay drawn by the applicant @ Rs. 18,250/- instead of Rs. 27,100/~ whereas the last basic pay drawn by the applicant was Rs. 54,200/-;
c) command and direct the respondents to-compute, fix and disburse pension of the applicant on the basis of last pay drawn by the applicant and pay the arrears of the pension to the applicant;
d) command and direct the respondents to release the gratuity and other allied benefits in favour of the applicant in accordance with Rule 242 of Civil Services Regulations, 1956 read with the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a mater HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: O.A. No. 789/2025 titled State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih; Thomas Daniel v/s State of Kerala and Jagdish W Prasad Singh v/s State of Bihar;
e) ANY other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicant, Bhola Nath, was initially engaged as a daily wager on 01.07.1985 in the Jal Shakti Department. Upon rendering continuous service, he was regularized on 31.03.1994 against a Class-IV post in the pay scale of Rs. 870-940.
Thereafter, in accordance with the prevailing service rules and government orders, the applicant was extended the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 with effect from 01.04.1994, and his pay was accordingly fixed and revised from time to time. The applicant continued to serve the department without any break or blemish and was eventually promoted as Assistant Motor Man.
b) On completion of long and unblemished service spanning nearly four decades, the applicant superannuated on 31.07.2024. At the time of retirement, his last drawn basic pay, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: O.A. No. 789/2025 after fixation under the applicable SROs and pay revision orders, stood at Rs. 54,200/-. The said fact is duly reflected in the Last Pay Certificate and Service Book maintained by the respondents themselves.
c) In terms of the statutory rules governing pension, particularly Rule 242 of the J&K Civil Services Regulations, 1956, the pension of a retiring employee is required to be fixed at 50% of the last drawn emoluments. Accordingly, the applicant's pension ought to have been fixed at Rs. 27,100/- per month. However, contrary to the service records and statutory mandate, respondent No.4 issued PPO No. 1124190982 dated 30.08.2024, whereby the applicant's pension was arbitrarily fixed at Rs. 18,250/-, substantially lower than what was lawfully admissible.
d) The applicant asserts that the impugned fixation has been made without assigning any cogent reason and without affording him any opportunity of hearing, despite the fact that the alleged issue relates to pay fixation extending over decades and duly approved by the competent authorities from time to time. The HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: O.A. No. 789/2025 applicant further submits that the reduced pension and withholding of gratuity have caused grave financial hardship post-retirement and are wholly unsustainable in law, particularly in the absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on his part.
e) The applicant contends that similarly situated employees of the same department have been granted pension strictly on the basis of their last drawn pay and that the action of the respondents in singling him out amounts to hostile discrimination. The applicant thus challenges the impugned PPO to the extent it fixes his pension at a reduced rate and seeks refixation of pension along with release of gratuity and consequential arrears, relying upon settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, and Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, which protect retired employees from arbitrary reduction of pension and recovery in the absence of fault.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 :: O.A. No. 789/2025
a) The respondents, while opposing the Original Application, have
raised preliminary objections contending that no statutory, legal, or fundamental right of the applicant has been infringed so as to warrant interference by this Tribunal. It is pleaded that the application involves disputed questions of fact relating to pay fixation and excess drawal, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings. It is further asserted that the applicant has suppressed material facts and has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands.
b) On merits, the respondents submit that the applicant retired from government service on 31.07.2024 and his pension case was received in the office of respondent No.4 in August 2024 for authorization. Upon scrutiny of the service records, it was noticed that the applicant had been extended the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 in the year 2016, despite the fact that at the relevant time, career progression for non-gazetted employees was governed by SRO-14 of 1996. According to the respondents, the grant of benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 was erroneous and contrary to the applicable rules.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: O.A. No. 789/2025
c) It is further stated that SRO-59 of 1990 was withdrawn vide
Government Order No. 277-F dated 06.06.2018 and, therefore, any benefit extended under the said SRO beyond its withdrawal was unauthorized. Consequently, while settling the pension case, the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 was required to be ignored, and the applicant's pension was refixed on the basis of the pay found admissible after excluding the said benefit.
d) The respondents place reliance on S.O. 129 dated 28.03.2022 issued by the Finance Department, whereby Article 242 of the J&K Civil Services Regulations was amended to permit verification and correction of pay even beyond 24 months preceding retirement in cases where undue benefit of deleted or withdrawn SROs or Government Orders had been granted. It is pleaded that since the applicant retired after issuance of S.O. 129 of 2022, his case squarely falls within the amended provisions, and the pay verification carried out by the Accountant General was fully in accordance with law.
e) The respondents further submit that during processing of the pension case, the pension and commutation were authorized on HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 789/2025 the due pay, while the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) was withheld, as the excess amount drawn by the applicant on account of wrongful grant of higher scale exceeded the admissible gratuity. The matter was taken up with the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for re-examination, but no clarification has been received till date.
f) It is also contended that the applicant, while submitting his pension papers, executed an undertaking acknowledging that pension and gratuity are subject to revision and agreeing to refund any excess payment if detected subsequently. In view of this undertaking, the respondents assert that the applicant is estopped from challenging the refixation and withholding of gratuity.
g) The respondents emphasize that excess payment constitutes public money and cannot be permitted to be retained by an employee who is not legally entitled thereto. They submit that the action taken is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory but is a lawful exercise aimed at safeguarding the public exchequer. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Original Application be HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 789/2025 dismissed, particularly qua respondent No.4, as no further action can be taken until the department re-examines the case and furnishes clarification.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. The applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal seeking quashment of PPO No. 1124190982 dated 30.08.2024 to the extent his pension has been fixed at Rs. 18,250/- instead of Rs. 27,100/-, along with a direction to the respondents to refix his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn and to release gratuity and other retiral benefits. The dispute essentially centres around the legality of refixation of pension by ignoring the pay which the applicant last drew at the time of superannuation.
6. The factual position is not in dispute. The applicant entered service in the year 1985, was regularized in 1994, and after rendering nearly four decades of service, superannuated on 31.07.2024. At the time of retirement, his last drawn basic pay stood fixed at Rs. 54,200/- as reflected in the Last Pay Certificate and Service Book maintained by the respondents themselves. It is also undisputed that the said pay HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 789/2025 fixation was never withdrawn, modified, or corrected during the applicant's service tenure, nor was any show cause notice ever issued to him questioning the grant of the higher scale.
7. In terms of Rule 242 of the J&K Civil Services Regulations, 1956, pension is required to be fixed at 50% of the emoluments last drawn. On a plain application of the statutory rule, the applicant's pension ought to have been fixed at Rs. 27,100/-. However, the respondents, at the stage of settlement of pension, chose to retrospectively revisit the applicant's pay fixation by contending that the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 had been wrongly extended to him and that the same stood withdrawn vide Government Order No. 277-F dated 06.06.2018.
8. This Tribunal finds that the approach adopted by the respondents is legally unsustainable. Once the applicant had been granted the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 during service and his pay had been fixed accordingly by the competent authority, the same attained finality. The respondents cannot, at the fag end of service or post-retirement, unilaterally reopen settled pay fixation matters without initiating due process. The law is well settled that any correction of pay fixation having civil consequences must be preceded by notice and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 789/2025 opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, no such exercise was ever undertaken during the applicant's service period.
9. The reliance placed by the respondents on S.O. 129 dated 28.03.2022 amending Article 242 CSR is misconceived in the facts of the present case. The said amendment merely enlarges the scope of verification of pay emoluments in cases where undue benefit of withdrawn SROs has been granted. It does not authorise arbitrary refixation of pension by disregarding the last pay drawn, nor does it override the settled principle that pension is to be computed on the basis of pay actually and lawfully drawn at the time of retirement. Importantly, the amendment does not validate retrospective deprivation of pensionary benefits where the employee is neither guilty of fraud nor misrepresentation.
10. The respondents have not alleged, much less established, that the applicant had obtained the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation. The benefit was extended by the department itself, implemented through official pay fixation orders, and allowed to continue uninterrupted till retirement. In such HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 789/2025 circumstances, the applicant cannot be penalised for an alleged administrative lapse committed by the employer.
11. The issue raised in the present case is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, and Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar has categorically held that recovery or reduction of retiral benefits from a retired employee, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, is impermissible in law and offends Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Pension and gratuity constitute property within the meaning of Article 300-A and cannot be withheld or reduced except by authority of law.
12. The action of the respondents in fixing the pension of the applicant at Rs. 18,250/- by ignoring the last pay drawn amounts to indirect recovery and retrospective reduction of pensionary entitlements, which is legally impermissible. The withholding of gratuity on the same premise is equally unsustainable, particularly when the alleged excess payment pertains to a period during service and no disciplinary or recovery proceedings were ever initiated.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 14 :: O.A. No. 789/2025
13. The undertaking relied upon by the respondents does not advance their case. Such routine undertakings cannot override statutory protections or constitutional guarantees, nor can they validate an otherwise illegal reduction of pension. This Tribunal is also of the considered view that pension cannot be fixed on a hypothetical "due pay" retrospectively re-assessed by the department, but must be fixed on the last pay actually drawn at the time of superannuation, unless such pay fixation had been lawfully withdrawn during service.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal holds that the impugned PPO No. 1124190982 dated 30.08.2024, insofar as it fixes the pension of the applicant at Rs. 18,250/-, is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law.
15. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed:
a) To refix the pension of the applicant on the basis of his last drawn basic pay of Rs. 54,200/- by fixing pension at Rs.
27,100/- per month.
b) To release the withheld gratuity and all other retiral benefits admissible to the applicant.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 15 :: O.A. No. 789/2025
c) To pay arrears of pension arising out of such refixation from the
date of retirement.
d) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
16. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV