Jammu & Kashmir High Court
No. 367/2024 Titled "Mohd. Ashraf Shah vs . Ut Of J & K And Others", on 18 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Sr. No. 33
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP (C) No. 871/2025
Pronounced on: 18.10.2025
Uploaded on: 18.10.2025
1. Union Territory of J & K
Through Principal Secretary to Government,
Jal Shakti (PHE) Department,
Civil Secretariat J & K at Jammu/Srinagar
2. Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE)
Department, Jammu-180001.
3. Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE)
Hydraulic Division Kishtwar-182204.
4. Accountant General (A&E), J & K and
Ladakh, Jammu-180001.
Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
v/s
Mohd. Ashraf Shah @ Mohd. Ashraf Shah, Age 62 years
S/o Sh. Ghulam Mohd. Shah
R/o Village Zajee Palmar,
Tehsil and District Kishtwar-182204 .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Rajnesh Singh Parihar, Advocate
Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate
CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
Sanjeev Kumar „J‟
1. Impugned in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is an order and judgment dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in OA
No. 367/2024 titled "Mohd. Ashraf Shah vs. UT of J & K and Others",
whereby the Tribunal has, while allowing the OA passed the following
directions:-
i. The impugned order of recovery qua the applicants is
quashed and set aside and the respondents are
directed not to recover any amount from the
pay/pensionary benefits of the applicants.
ii. The respondents are directed to restore the
pay/pension of the applicants which they were getting
prior to the issuance of the impugned order.
iii. The amount recovered from the pay/pensionary
benefits of the applicants, shall be refunded
preferably within two months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
iv. In the cases, where applicants have already retired,
the respondents shall pay pension to the applicants
on the basis of last pay drawn by the applicants.
2. The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners, primarily, on the
ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that no law prevents the
employer from correcting its error and an employee who has been paid the
emoluments erroneously cannot retain the same. The issue raised in this
petition stands already resolved in numerous judgments passed by this
Court. The judgment dated 14.10.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 1112/2025
titled "UT of J & K and Ors. vs. Mulkh Raj" may be referred with
advantage. However, the factual matrix of the instant case is slightly
different and, therefore, needs to be taken note of.
3. The respondent was working in the PHE Department as Fitter in
Hydraulic Division Kishtwar w.e.f. 21.05.1987. He was placed in the
upgraded pay scale of Rs. 800-1500 revised to Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f.
18.09.1989. This up-gradation was purportedly under the provisions of
SRO 59 of 1990. The respondent having found that the similarly situated
persons working as Fitter in the Department were getting the benefit of
higher pay scale in terms of SRO 380 of 1989 dated 29.09.1989, filed
SWP No. 2012/2016 before this Court. A Bench of this Court vide order
dated 22.09.2016 disposed of the petition with a direction to the
petitioners herein to consider the representation of the respondent in terms
of SRO 380 of 1989 as may be applicable to the case and decide the claim
on its own merits. In compliance with the aforesaid judgment, the
Executive Engineer concerned passed an order bearing no. HDK/7458-59
dated 24.01.2017 giving the respondent benefit of SRO 380 of 1989 w.e.f.
01.06.1991 with all consequential benefits. The respondent was placed in
the pay scale of 900-1830 (pre-revised). The respondent continued in
service and attained superannuation on 30.11.2022.
4. At the time of processing the pension case of the respondent, it was
pointed out by Office of the Accountant General that vide its
communication dated 14.11.2022 addressed to the Executive Engineer, Jal
Shakti Hydraulic Division, Kishtwar that the benefit of SRO 59 had been
erroneously extended to the respondent w.e.f. 18.09.1989 and, therefore,
the error was required to be corrected and recovery effected. It is this
communication which was called in question by the respondent in the OA
before the Tribunal which has been disposed of by the Tribunal in terms
of the judgment impugned.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the
Tribunal is perfectly legal and in consonance with law and, therefore, does
not call for any interference by us in this petition.
6. We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the judgment of the Tribunal,
though, for slightly different reasons. In the instant case, it is true that the
benefit of SRO 59 was extended to the respondent w.e.f. 18.09.1989
which benefit was derived by the respondent up to 01.06.1991. With
effect from 01.06.1991, what was given to the respondent was a pay scale
in terms of SRO 380 of 1989 in compliance with the judgment passed by
this Court in SWP No. 2012/2016.
7. We have noted that in the communication which was impugned by the
respondent before the Tribunal, the office of the Accountant General had
not taken note of the aforesaid aspect and had taken it as a case of
wrongful drawal of salary by the respondent under SRO 59, even though,
w.e.f. 01.06.1991, the higher pay scale was given to the respondent under
SRO 380 of 1989 and that too, in compliance with the directions issued by
a Bench of this Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the amount
which was wrongfully paid to him under SRO 59 w.e.f 18.09.1989 to
01.06.1991 cannot be covered in view of the law laid down by us in the
judgement (supra) and w.e.f. 01.09.1991, the respondent was otherwise
entitled to the pay scale granted to him under SRO 380 of 1989.
9. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
18.10.2025
Manik
Whether this order is speaking: yes/no
Whether this order is reportable: yes/no
