Union Territory Of J&K And Others vs Kewal Krishan And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 783 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Union Territory Of J&K And Others vs Kewal Krishan And Others on 16 February, 2026

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                         Sr. No. 15



        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                                         Case No. WP(C) No.301/2026
                                                  Caveat No.236/2026

                                               Date of Pronouncement:- 16.02.2026
                                               Uploaded on:-           17.02.2026

Union Territory of J&K and others                       .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                                 Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
                                            Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Assisting Counsel
                         v/s
Kewal Krishan and others                                           .....Respondent(s)

                                 Through :- Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
                                            Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

                               ORDER(ORAL)

Per:-Sanjeev Kumar-J

01. In this petition filed by a Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and

four others, an order and judgment dated 06.02.2025 (for short, "the impugned

order") passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench Jammu

(for short, 'the Tribunal') in T.A. No.61/6534/2021 titled 'Kewal Krishan and

Ors. Vs. UT of J&K and Ors.' is under challenge.

02. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that

the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondents were paid the

allowances and other sums mistakenly and therefore, there was nothing wrong

on the part of petitioners to recover the same. It is argued that an employee

cannot be permitted to be unjustly enriched.

WP(C) No. 301/2026 1 of 2

03. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

on record, we are of the considered opinion that the issue raised in this petition

is fully covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

'State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)' AIR 2015 SC 696 and

'Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.' 2022 Live Law (SC) 438. There

is no dispute that the respondents belong to group C and D category employees

and recoveries are sought to be made either after their retirement or at the fag

end of the career. The Tribunal has, thus, correctly appreciated the grievance of

the respondents and has granted them reliefs in terms of the impugned order in

this petition. We could not be persuaded by learned Sr. Additional Advocate

General to take a view contrary to the one taken by the Tribunal.

04. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the instant petition and the

same is, accordingly, dismissed along with all connected application(s).

                                        (Sanjay Parihar)                   (Sanjeev Kumar)
                                            Judge                                Judge

          JAMMU
          16.02.2026
          Shammi
                                                     Whether the order is speaking?     Yes/No
                                                     Whether the order is reportable?   Yes/No
                                                                                             2 of 2