CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR BENCH, SRINAGAR O.A. No. 349 OF 2025 Date of Order This the 22nd of April, 2025 :

C O R A M HON’BLE MR. D.S. MAHRA, MEMBER(J)

1. Maqsooda Akhter, Aged: 60 years W/o: Manzoor Ahmad Mir R/o: Pampor, Pulwama-192121

2. Mohammad Amin Bhat (Aged 60 years)

S/O Ghulam Rasool Bhat R/O Tral Bala Pulwama-192123 ………. Applicants By Advocate:

Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, Advocate, for applicant.

VERSUS

1) Union Territory of J&K through its Principal Accountant General, J&K, Srinagar PIN CODE – 190001

2) Sr. Accountant Officer (Pension)PNR) Srinagar-190001

3) Chief Engineer, R&B, PWD, Rajbagh, Srinagar- 190008

4) Sr. Superintending Engineer, PWD(R&B) Circle Raj Bagh, Srinagar-190008.

5) Superintending Engineer, PWD(R&B) Circle Budgam-

191111.

6) Executive Engineer, PWD(R&B) Division Chadoora-191113 7) Executive Engineer R&B Project-II Pantha Chowk Srinagar.

191191 …..Respondents By Advocate :-

M/S Waseem Gul, GA, and B.A. Zarger, Advocate for respondents O R D E R (O R A L)

Hon’ble Mr. D.S. MAHRA, M[J]

1. Learned Counsel for both the parties are present.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants were appointed in the respondent’s department and were working in the said department to the best satisfaction of their superiors. The respondents had extended the benefit of pay revision in terms of SRO 59 dated 06.02.1990, in favour of the applicants. The applicants retired from their services on 30.04.2025, and their cases for grant of retiral/pensionery benefits were forwarded to the respondents’ No. 1 and 2. However, the said respondents without any authority and jurisdiction had released the pensionery benefits while excluding the benefits of pay revision given to them in lieu of SRO 59 dated 06.02.1990. The learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the identical matters, Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, directed the respondents not to recover any amount from the applicants and to pay the retiral benefits in their favour granted in terms of SRO 59 dated 06.02.1990. He has further submitted that this Tribunal in the similarly situated matter bearing OA No. 592/2023, titled “Mehraj-ud- Din and ors VS UT of J&K & ors” decided on 27.09.2024, had also directed the respondents to release all benefits in favour of the applicants as per the pay revision, granted in their favour vide SRO 59 dated 06.02.1990.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants has fairly submitted that it will suffice, if the respondents are directed to release pensionery benefits in favour of the applicants, as per pay revision, granted to them in terms of SRO 59 dated 06.02.1990, and in light of the order passed on 27.09.2024, by this Tribunal in OA No. 592/2023 titled Mehraj-ud-Din and Ors Vs.

UT of J&K and Ors, within a stipulated period.

4. M/s Waseem Gul, GA, and B.A.

Zargar,Advocate appeared for Respondents.

5. Heard and considered the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that this Court has passed the order in OA No. 592/2023, titled “Mehraj-ud-Din and Ors Vs. UT of J&K and Ors”, on 27.09.2023, the operative para of which is reproduced as under:-

“So far as the recovery of the excess payment with effect from the date on which the benefit of SRO 59/1990, was granted to the applicants, the respondents cannot resort to such action having regard to the fact that the applicants have already been superannuated. Even it is assumed that the applicants have drawn excess pay, the respondents cannot recover the said amount in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of State of Punjab VS Rafiq Masih 2015 (4) SCC 334. It is not a case of the respondents that the applicants had played a fraud or misrepresented before getting the benefit of SRO 59/1990. In such a situation respondents cannot recover the said alleged excess amount paid to them.

In view of above, the respondents are directed not to recover any alleged excess amount paid to the applicants during service