Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4069

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member
Gurbachan Lal – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
O.A. No. 61/1063/2024|O.A. No. 204 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K Nirmal Kotwal, Surbhi Kotwal
For the Respondents: Rajesh Thapa, Sumant Sudan

Unilateral withdrawal of judicially upheld pay benefits under SRO 149 post-retirement without notice violates natural justice and Article 14; entitles consequential in-situ promotions under SRO 14 with full retiral benefits.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service law - SRO 149 of 1973 and SRO 14 of 1996 - Higher pay scales for skilled workers and time-bound promotions - Benefit of higher pay scale under SRO 149 granted w.e.f. 01.05.2001 in pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 cannot be withdrawn unilaterally post-retirement without notice or hearing, being violative of Articles 14 & 16 - Withdrawal quashed relying on High Court and Supreme Court judgments upholding entitlement for matriculate ITI holders across departments - Estoppel applies as benefit conferred earlier and extended to similarly situated employees - Principles of natural justice mandate show cause notice before reduction - SRO 14 entitles to 2nd and 3rd in-situ promotions in Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.05.2010 and Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 01.05.2019 upon completion of 18 & 27 years service post-SRO 149 benefit - Administrative orders cannot override statutory schemes - SO 129 of 2022 not attracted post-judicial pronouncements. (Paras 9-23)

(B) Pension - Fixation and recovery - No recovery permissible from Class-III employee or retiree for erroneously conferred benefits upheld judicially - Pension and retiral benefits to be refixed with consequential arrears including withheld gratuity with interest. (Paras 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, engaged as daily wager from 1984, regularized as Helper (Mechanical) from 1994, granted 1st in-situ promotion to Rs.2610-3540 w.e.f. 01.07.1998 counting temporary service, SRO 149 benefit to Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.05.2001 later withdrawn without notice; denied 2nd/3rd in-situ under SRO 14; pension fixed lower and gratuity withheld post-superannuation on 30.04.2023; prior OA directed consideration but claim rejected vide impugned order dated 17.05.2024.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order quashed; SRO 14 benefits for 2nd/3rd in-situ promotions directed w.e.f. 01.05.2010 & 01.05.2019 with arrears; pension/retiral benefits refixed accordingly; withheld gratuity released with interest; exercise within 2 months.

Issues: (1) Justifiability of reviewing and withdrawing SRO 149 benefit post-retirement without hearing; (2) Entitlement to 2nd/3rd in-situ promotions under SRO 14 consequential to SRO 149; (3) Validity of lower pension fixation and gratuity withholding.

Ratio Decidendi: Unilateral post-retirement withdrawal of long-standing pay benefits without notice violates natural justice and equality; judicially upheld SRO 149 entitlement binds administration across departments by estoppel; SRO 14 career progression applies atop SRO 149 skilled scale; recoveries barred for retirees.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's service history and pay fixation grievances under sros. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. respondents' reply denying sro benefits post-retirement. (Para 7 , 8)
3. applicant's arguments on estoppel and supreme court precedent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. respondents' contention on correcting erroneous pay fixation. (Para 12)
5. court summarizes facts and frames key issues on sro entitlements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. high court ruling upholding sro-149 benefits for skilled workers. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. rejection of respondents' defense; natural justice violation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. order quashing impugned order and granting reliefs. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

O R D E R

The present Original Application (in short O.A.) has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. Seeking quashment of office order No. JSMDNJ/628=30 dated 17.05.2022 passed by respondent No. 3 whereby the claim of the applicant has been rejected the rejection being illegal arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case the order of rejection has been passed by the respondents just to deprive the applicant from recurring the benefit of SRO -14 of 1996 dated 15.01.1996.

ii. Directing the respondents/non-applicants to extend the benefit of SRO-14 of 1996 dated 15.01.1996 (Higher Standard Pay Scale) for 2nd and 3rd in-situ in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and 5000-8000 (Pre-revised) w.e.f. 01.05.2010 & 01.05.2019 with all consequential benefits on the same analogy as has been extended to similarly situated employees who have been extended the benefit of skilled category under SRO-149 of 1973.

iii. Directing the non-applicants to correct the pay scale of the applicant with effect from 01.07.2009 by reflecting grant of 2nd and 3rd in-situ promotion on completion of 18 & 27 years of service respectively.

iv. Directing the non-applicant to release the arrears of salary in accordance with pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from 01.07.2009 and consequential benefits of 2nd and 3rd in-situ and also refix the pension and other retiral benefits.

v. Directing the non-applicant to release the gratuity of the applicant along with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date it has been wrongly withheld by the non-applicants.”

2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the OA are that the applicant was engaged as a daily wager with effect from 01.09.1984 and served up to 31.03.1994. Thereafter, he was converted from PDL to the regular establishment as Helper (Mechanical) with effect from 01.04.1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 750–940, vide Executive Engineer, PHE Mechanical Division, Jammu, Order No. 6632-39 dated 14.07.1995. The applicant was declared quasi-permanent in the pay scale of Rs. 750–940 with effect from 01.04.1997, in pursuance of Executive Engineer, PHE Mechanical Division North, Jammu, Order No. 1397-1400 dated 31.10.1998. In terms of Executive Engineer, PHE Mechanical (North) Division, Jammu, Order No. 1126-31 dated 14.09.1998, the applicant was granted Ist in-situ promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 2610–3540 with effect from 01.07.1998, after granting credit of temporary service rendered from 01.09.1984 to 31.03.1994, and his pay was accordingly fixed. The applicant’s post was re- designated from Helper to Assistant Motor Man pursuant to Government Order No. 141-PW(Hyd) of 2006 dated 17.03.2006, read with Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Jammu, endorsement No.PHEJ/4E/17172-17203 dated 20.03.2006.

3. It is averred that vide Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Jammu, Order No. PHEJ/GE/783-813 dated 22.04.2004, the applicant was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4000–6000 with effect from 01.05.2001, extending to him the benefit of SRO 149 of 1973 applicable to skilled category workers. His pay was upgraded accordingly and arrears were released; similarly situated skilled workers were also granted this benefit. That subsequently, due to the inadvertence of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4069

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSanjeev Gupta, Judicial MemberGurbachan Lal – AppellantVersusUT of J&K – RespondentO.A. No. 61/1063/2024|O.A. No. 204 of 2024

Unilateral withdrawal of judicially upheld pay benefits under SRO 149 post-retirement without notice violates natural justice and Article 14; entitles consequential in-situ promotions under SRO 14 with full retiral benefits.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member
Gurbachan Lal – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
O.A. No. 61/1063/2024|O.A. No. 204 of 2024