The court emphasized that compliance with recovery orders must follow established legal parameters and permitted fresh challenges to those orders within legal frameworks.

OP(CAT)No. 137 of 2025 …............................................................ Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikar i, J.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners do not want to press the relief with regard to House Rent Allowance. So far as recovery is concerned, the learned tribunal in paragraph No.36 has categorically held that recoveries have to be effected based on the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], and the O.M., issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, after examining the case of all the petitioners individually and taking a decision appropriately.

2. During the pendency of this OP(CAT), the respondents have complied with this order and has issued orders, which are produced along with I.A.No.1 of 2026, an application for taking documents on record. In these orders, it is clearly stated that they have been issued as per the directions contained in the Tribunal's order dated 23.06.2025 in O.A.No.304 of 2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these orders of recovery needs to be stayed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India raised an objection that the orders of recovery cannot be stayed, since they are not under challenge in the present OP. He also stated that, the petitioners would be at liberty to assail those orders before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, since it gives them a fresh cause of action.

5. We find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Union of India. As stated earlier, the respondents have complied with the order passed in O.A.Nos.304 of 2024 and 338 of 2024, by passing Exts.P3, P4 and P5 orders which have been produced along with I.A.No.1 of 2026, by the petitioners. If so, we are of the view that it gives a fresh cause of action to the petitioners and their remedy is to challenge them in appropriate proceedings. Since, nothing survives for consideration in this O.P., the same is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the orders of recovery as per law.

Sd/-