CAT quashes Rs. 8.89 lakh recovery order against retired SKIMS Medical College Prof.

14/10/2026

SRINAGAR, Oct 13: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, has quashed an order directing recovery of Rs. 8,89,846 from the retiral benefits of a former professor of SKIMS Medical College, Bemina, observing that the action was taken without following due process and without recording any finding of fraud or misrepresentation against the retired employee.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member M.S. Latif and Administrative Member Prasant Kumar set aside the recovery order dated February 21, 2023, in a case filed by Dr. Reyaz Ahmad Untoo, who retired on January 31, 2021, as Principal and Head of the Department of Ophthalmology at SKIMS Medical College and Hospital, Bemina, Srinagar.
The tribunal pronounced its order on October 12, 2026, after reserving it on October 9.
Dr. Untoo had approached the tribunal challenging the proposed recovery of the amount from his pensionary benefits and gratuity on the ground that he had allegedly received excess leave encashment.
The dispute arose after the Director, SKIMS, issued an order on July 10, 2021, sanctioning leave salary equivalent to 300 days in favour of the petitioner. The amount was subsequently paid to him as part of his retirement benefits.
However, during the processing of his remaining retiral benefits, the authorities revisited his earned-leave account and concluded that he was entitled to encashment for only 166 days instead of 300 days.
According to the respondents, the revised calculation showed an alleged excess payment of Rs. 8,89,846, which they sought to recover from his gratuity under the applicable Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations.
The authorities maintained that the petitioner's qualifying service for retirement benefits commenced on September 25, 1999, when he joined SKIMS, and continued until his superannuation on January 31, 2021. They contended that his earlier service at Government Medical College, Srinagar, and the Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir, could not be counted because it had not been regularised or formally absorbed into the SKIMS cadre.
The petitioner, however, argued that the leave encashment had been sanctioned by the competent authority after the prescribed formalities had been completed. He contended that the proposed recovery was initiated after his retirement without notice or an opportunity to explain his position.
Advocate Faizan Majid Bhat, appearing for Dr. Untoo, relied on Supreme Court judgments, including State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel versus State of Kerala, to argue that recovery of alleged excess payments from retired employees was subject to established legal safeguards.
The respondents, represented by Deputy Advocate General Syed Musaib, defended the recovery, submitting that the payment had resulted from an erroneous calculation of earned leave and that the authorities were empowered to recover government dues from retirement gratuity.
After examining the rival submissions and the record, the tribunal observed that the recovery order did not contain any finding of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner.
In its order, the Bench noted that the authorities had failed to initiate formal proceedings or issue notice to the retired employee before passing the impugned order.
The tribunal also referred to judicial precedents governing recovery of excess payments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Sahib Ram versus State of Haryana and others, which was cited in support of the petitioner's contention that recovery could not be sustained in the absence of the requisite findings.
The Bench observed that the respondents had not adhered to due process while issuing the recovery order and had not recorded any finding establishing fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.
It held that the impugned order, having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without the necessary findings, could not withstand legal scrutiny.
"Accordingly, impugned order dated 21.02.2023 is set aside and quashed," the tribunal ordered.
The Bench accordingly disposed of Transfer Application No. 162/2024, with no order as to costs.
Dr. Untoo was represented by Advocate Faizan Majid Bhat, while Deputy Advocate General Syed Musaib appeared for the respondents.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty