Amarsang Thakor vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 13 October 2026

1. Amarsang Thakor, S/o Shri Cheluji Thakor, Aged about 43 years, Postman, Emp. ID: 10271813, O/o The Sub Postmaster, Kanodar Sub Post Office, Banaskantha Division, Kanodar – 385520.

Resident of Pirovalovas, Sahesa, Dist – Patan - 384290

……………………. Applicant. (By Advocate: Ms. Vilas Purani)

VERSUS

1. Union of India,

Through the Secretary,

Department of Posts,

Ministry of Communications,

Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Chief Postmaster General,

Gujarat Circle,

Khanpur, Ahmedabad – 380001.

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Banaskantha Division,

Palanpur – 385001.

4. The Postmaster,

Head Post Office, Palanpur – 385001.

………………….. Respondents. (By Advocate: Mr. H.D. Shukla)

PRATIK VYAS

:: 2 :: O.A.No.457/2026

O R D E R (ORAL) Per : Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (Judicial)

1. In the instant OA, the applicant who is a Group – C employee and working as Postmaster, being aggrieved with Letter/Memo No. A1/S’book/License/2025-26 dated 06.08.2025 issued to Gazettee Notification G.S.R. 157(E) dated 05.03.2020 whereby a recovery of Rs. 1,33,575/- was ordered from the salary of the applicant in the monthly installment of Rs. 8000/- for the period from 01.07.2021 to 10.07.2025 without show-cause notice, on account of withdrawal increment granted to him, , has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking following reliefs:- “VIII. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR In the above facts and circumstances, the Applicant prays that: A. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to declare the action of the Respondent No. 4 in issuing Letter/Memo No, A1/S‟book/License/2025-26 dated 06.08.2025 pursuant to „Gazette Notification G.S.R. 157(E) dated 05.03.2020 inflicting recovery of Rs 133575 at ANNEXURE-A/1 and thereby effecting recovery of Rs. 8,000 and effecting recovery of Rs. 8,000/- per month from August 2025 without show-cause notice as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and be pleased to quash and set aside the same along with all deductions, B. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents forthwith to stop any further recovery from the salaries of the Applicant; and to refund /re- credit to the Applicant the amounts already recovered pursuant thereto.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 3 :: O.A.No.457/2026

C. Grant of any other relief to which the Applicant is found entitled in and equity, together with costs of the present proceedings.”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 That the Applicant was initially working as an Assistant Branch Postmaster (ABPM) under Patan Division, Department of Posts, and rendered long, sincere, and unblemished service in the said capacity. 2.2 It is submitted that the Ministry of Communications notified the Department of Posts Postman and Mail Guard (Group 'C' post) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2020 vide Gazettee Notification G.S.R. 157(E) dated 05.03.2020. As per Note 2 of the said Rules a person appointed to the post of Postman shall acquire a driving license within two years from the date of appointment and Note 3 stipulates that a candidate not having a valid driving license at the time of appointment shall not earn periodical increments till production of such license or for 5 years, and upon production of license, pay shall be restored prospectively without arrears (Annexure A/2) refer. 2.3 Learned counsel submitted that the Applicant appeared in said LDCE held for promotion from GDS to Postman/Mail Guard against the vacancies of the year 2018 and qualified the same. Thereafter, the respondents issued promotion order and posting order of the applicant herein and he has joined the Kanodar Sub Post Office as Postman on 11.07.2020. 2.4 It is submitted that at no point of time, the Respondents inform, direct, or call upon the Applicant to produce a valid driving licence or bring the Gazette Notification dated.05.03.2020 to his knowledge. Even, during document verification at joining, the Applicant furnished all documents called for by the officials. The recruiting/appointing authority itself failed to verify or insist upon compliance with Note 2 & Note 3 of the 2020 Rules at the threshold and produce a driving license. It is submitted that the applicant consequent upon his promotion as Postman, has been continuously discharging his duties

PRATIK VYAS

:: 4 :: O.A.No.457/2026

and he has been granted periodical increments by the respondents in ordinary course for over five years, without any objection. However, only on 06.08.2025, the respondent No. 4 issued Letter/ Memo No. Al/S’book/License/2025-26 dated 06.08.2025, invoking MoC Letter F No. 03-03/2019-SPN-1 dated 19.06.2020 & the 2020 Amendment Rules, declaring that an overpayment of R 1,33,575/ was made to the Applicant for the period from 01.07.2021 to 10.07.2025 for non-submission of driving license, and ordered recovery in installments of Rs. 8,000/- per month without even issuing show cause notice, opportunity of hearing which is clear violation of principle of natural justice. 2.5 Learned counsel submitted that the applicant has submitted his driving license in September 2025, however, the Respondents continued to effect heavy monthly deductions of Rs. 8,000/-. 2.6 Being aggrieved with the said recovery, the applicant submitted various representations to the respondents whereby he pointed out that no written notice /letter regarding driving license was given at recruitment, that recovery was started without notice based on an audit and requested to stop recovery. However, the respondents without considering the same have continued with the recovery. Hence, this OA.

3. In support of the prayer sought in the OA, Ms. Vilas Purani, learned counsel for the applicant mainly argued as under:- 3.1 That the applicant herein is working as Postman (Group-C) and the action of the respondents to order recovery from his monthly salary that too after almost five years of his appointment is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein in para 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically enumerated the situations in which recovery from the wages of the employees would be impermissible in law which reads as under:-

PRATIK VYAS

:: 5 :: O.A.No.457/2026

12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. 3.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that as per settled law recovery from an employee’s salary must be preceded by a specific show- cause and opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the action of the respondents to effect such a huge recovery that too without issuing show cause is not tenable and in violation of principle of natural justice. 3.3 Further, it is submitted that there was absolutely no misrepresentation, suppression of facts, fraud or deceit on the part of the Applicant at any point of time. The Applicant neither induced the Respondents to grant annual

PRATIK VYAS

:: 6 :: O.A.No.457/2026

increments nor obtained any pecuniary benefit by making any false declaration or by practicing any fraud. The annual increments were sanctioned, released and paid by the Respondents themselves in the ordinary course of administration after due scrutiny of the Applicant’s service records. The Applicant merely received the salary lawfully disbursed by the competent authority and had no role whatsoever in the decision-making process relating to sanction of increments and the respondents have voluntarily granted and continued to release the increments for nearly six years, therefore, now the Respondents cannot attribute their own administrative lapse to the Applicant or seek to recover the amounts so paid to the applicant as the said action of the respondents is in violation of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra).

4. Per contra, on receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. Mr. H.D. Shukla learned counsel for the respondents by referring the reply mainly submitted as under:- 4.1 That the Ministry of Communications notified the Department of Posts Postman and Mail Guard (Group 'C' post) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2020 vide Gazettee Notification G.S.R. 157(E) dated 05.03.2020 before the applicant’s appointment. As per Note 2 of the said Rules a person appointed to the post of Postman shall acquire a driving license within two years from the date of appointment and as per Note 3 a candidate not having a valid driving license at the time of appointment shall not earn periodical increments till production of such license or for 5 years, and upon production of license, pay shall be restored prospectively without arrears. Further, it is stated that the respondents in the year 2023 called upon the applicant to furnish a copy of license and only than the respondents came to know that the applicant does not possesses a valid driving license which is also admitted by the applicant in his application dated 29.07.2025. Therefore, the applicant failed to comply with the (Amendment) Rules, 2020 published vide Gazettee Notification G.S.R. 157(E) dated 05.03.2020 more particularly Note 2.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 7 :: O.A.No.457/2026

4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have inadvertently granted him increments to which the applicant was not admissible and accordingly, vide impugned order directed recovery from the salary of the applicant which is just and proper. 4.3 Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Applicant did not substantively earn the disputed increments under Note 3, and an accounting oversight cannot amend a statutory Rule or create a vested right to future pay and the permissibility of recovering sums already paid must be assessed under the equitable recovery jurisprudence. A restriction on recovery, if attracted, does not convert the underlying payment into a lawful entitlement or entitle the Applicant to arrears for the intervening period. 4.3 Further, it is submitted that the judgment relied upon by the applicant of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this regard, it is submitted that the situations in which recovery of mistaken excess payment would ordinarily be impermissible, including recovery from Group-C or Group-D employees and recovery where excess payment is paid and continued for more than five years before the recovery order has been enumerated by the Hon’ble Apex Court but subsequently the DoPT O.M. No. 18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 02.03.2016 has been issued which stipulates that the facts and equitable balance is to be examined in accordance with that decision. In the present case, the disputed period was 01.07.2021 to 10.07.2025, the Rule itself expressly withheld increments, the Applicant was called upon in 2023 to furnish the license, and on 29.07.2025 he expressly admitted that he did not possess one. Moreover, the disputed calculation concerns the period 01.07.2021 to 10.07.2025, which is about four years and ten days and not a period exceeding five years before the recovery action. 4.4 By referring the aforesaid submissions/contentions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the OA lacks merit and accordingly, the same may be dismissed.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 8 :: O.A.No.457/2026

5. To counter the aforementioned submissions of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4981/2019 (Chaturbhuj Rathore Vs. Union of India & Ors.) wherein by considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) as well as the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in Maha Nagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. V. Shri Ramdhan Gupta & Anr. 2019 SC Online Del 7125 which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 19167/2019 dated 16.08.2019 held in para 18 as under:- “18. In Shri. Ramdhan Gupta (supra), considering the above conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), this Court held as under: “11. From the above, it would be seen that so far as employee belonging to Class III and Class IV services (or Group C and D services), are concerned, recovery was declared to be impermissible in all situations, where excess payment had been made to them mistakenly by the employer, for which they were not responsible in any way. The categories (ii) to (v), above, however, are not restricted to employees belonging to Class III and Class IV, or Group C and Group D services.

12. Thus, the submission of Mr. Dutt that recovery from respondent No. 1 could be affected since he was not a Class III or Class IV employee, has no merit. His case squarely falls in Clauses (ii) and (iii) aforesaid, since the recovery was made on the retirement of respondent No. 1, and it related to a period well in excess of five years.” 5.1 By referring the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Hon’ble High Court Delhi had directed the respondents therein to refund the amount recovered from the applicant.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 9 :: O.A.No.457/2026

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that the core issue which requires adjudication by this Tribunal is whether the respondents can recover a sum of ₹1,33,575/- from the applicant who is serving as Postman (Group 'C') on account of non-possession of valid driving license as per Note 2 of (Amendment) Rules, 2020 published vide Gazettee Notification G.S.R. 157(E) dated 05.03.2020 and when an administrative mistake is done and annual increments were inadvertently granted to the applicant..

8. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is working as Postman (Group- C). It is also undisputed that the Applicant neither induced the Respondents to grant annual increments nor obtained any pecuniary benefit by making any false declaration or by practicing any fraud. The annual increments were sanctioned, released and paid by the Respondents themselves in the ordinary course of administration after due scrutiny of the Applicant’s service. 8.1 The issues regarding monetary recoveries from employees (Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D') due to mistaken excess payments by employers is firmly anchored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the Rafiq Masih (White Washer) case (supra). In paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Apex Court summarized specific situations where recoveries are ex-facie impermissible in law: "….(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service)." "(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued……." 8.2 Thus, based on the above dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the impugned action of the respondents recover a huge amount from the salary of the applicant who is a Group – C employee is not tenable in the eyes of law.

9. So far the respondents' contention that because the excess payment period (01.07.2021 to 10.07.2025) spans roughly 4 years and 10 days, it falls short of the 5-year mark under clause (iii) of the Rafiq Masih (supra), the

PRATIK VYAS

:: 10 :: O.A.No.457/2026

recovery is valid, the same is not tenable and the said interpretation is fundamentally flawed. 9.1 In this regard, it is profitable to refer the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Chaturbhuj Rathore Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein by relying on Maha Nagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Shri Ramdhan Gupta, 2019 SCC Online Del 7125 (supra), the Hon’ble High Court clarified that the five conditions enumerated in paragraph 12 of Rafiq Masih are distinct and independent of each other. Therefore, the situation No. (i) of the Para 12 of the Rafiq Masih (supra) places an absolute prohibition on recoveries from Class-III and Class- IV (Group 'C' and 'D') employees, irrespective of the timeframe.

10. As noted herein above, the applicant herein is a Group 'C' Postman, his case is fully protected under Clause (i) of the Rafiq Masih (supra) judgment. The fact that the overpayment lasted under five years does not dilute or negate the absolute protection given to Group-C & D employees, for whom sudden, heavy financial recoveries inflict severe and iniquitous domestic hardship.

11. Furthermore, the action of the respondents in executing a heavy monthly deduction of ₹8,000/- without serving a prior show-cause notice or affording a personal hearing is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Unilateral administrative actions that carry civil and financial consequences cannot be sustained without procedural fairness.

12. Thus, in view of the above discussed settled legal position, the present Original Application is allowed with following directions:- 12.1 The impugned Letter/Memo No. A1/S’book/License/2025-26 dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure A/1) issued by Respondent No. 4 ordering the recovery of ₹1,33,575/- is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. 12.2 The Respondents are directed to immediately stop any further recovery or salary deductions from the applicant pursuant to the impugned order dated 06.08.2025.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 11 :: O.A.No.457/2026

12.3 The Respondents are further directed to refund and re-credit the entire amount already deducted/recovered from the applicant’s salary pursuant to impugned order dated 06.08.2025 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

13. The OA is allowed with aforesaid directions. No Costs.

(Sanjiv Kumar) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)

Member (A) Member (J)

/pv/

PRATIK VYAS