Pravinaben B Khesti vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 13 October 2026

1. Smt. Pravinaben B. Khesti,

S/o Shri Bhupatbhai,

Aged about 56 years, Postman,

Emp ID: 10274509,

O/o The Postmaster,

Head Post Office, Bhavnagar – 364001, Bhavnagar Division.

Resident of C/o Asaliya Bhupatbhai, Plot No. 17, Narayan Society, Ghogha Road, Bhavnagar – 364001.

2. Shri Sudhirkumar Vallabhbhai Rathod,

S/o Shri Vallabhbhai Rathod,

Aged about 45 years, Postman, Emp ID: 10271131, O/o The Postmaster, Head Post Office, Bhavnagar – 364001, Bhavnagar Division Resident of : Opp- Prathmik School, Kanad Road, Khari, Bhavnagar – 364240.

3. Shri Bijalbhai Aatabhai Makwana,

S/o Shri Aatabhai Makwana,

Aged about 57 years, Postman, Emp ID: 10271124

O/o the Sub Postmaster, Talaja Sub Post Office – 364140, Bhavnagar Division.

Resident of Bhil Sheir, Satnapur, Dist – Bhavnagar – 364140.

……………………. 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.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 2 :: O.A.No.459/2026

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Bhavnagar Division, Bhavnagar – 364001.

4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajkot Division, Rajkot – 360001.

5. The Postmaster, Head Post Office, Bhavnagar – 364001.

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

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

1. In the instant OA, the applicant who are a Group – C employee and working as Postmaster, being aggrieved with Impugned Recovery Order No. Acctt./IAI/Nov-25/2025 dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure A/1) whereby a recovery of Rs. 1,64,654/-, Rs. 1,99,010/- and Rs. 1,99,010/- in the monthly installment of Rs. 5000/- from the applicants no. 1, 2 & 3 respectively, on the ground that they have not submitted their driving license on the date of appointment as Postmaster but the periodical increment was drawn by them which is irregular, without show-cause notice, on account of withdrawal increment granted to him, have 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 Impugned Recovery Order No. Acctt./IAI/Nov- 25/2025 dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure A/1) to the extent it directs recovery of Rs. 1,64,654/- from the applicant no.1, Rs. 1,99,010/- from applicant no.2 and Rs. 1,99,010/- from applicant no.3 or such amounts as have been/are sought to be recovered from their pay and allowances, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, non-application of mind, against the law

PRATIK VYAS

:: 3 :: O.A.No.459/2026

settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and hence be pleased to quash and set aside the same in the interest of justice. B. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents forthwith to stop any further recovery from the salaries of the Applicant pursuant to the impugned order dated 08.01.2026t; and to refund /re-credit to the Applicant the amounts already recovered pursuant thereto. 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 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. 2.2 Learned counsel submitted that the Applicants appeared in said LDCE held for promotion from GDS to Postman/Mail Guard against the vacancies of the year 2018 and 2019 qualified the same. Thereafter, the respondents issued promotion order and posting order of the applicants herein. 2.3 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 their knowledge. Even, during document verification at joining, the Applicants furnished all

PRATIK VYAS

:: 4 :: O.A.No.459/2026

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 applicants consequent upon their promotion as Postman, have been continuously discharging their duties and they have been granted periodical increments by the respondents in ordinary course for nearly six years, without any objection. 2.4 It is submitted that an internal audit inspection of Bhavnagar Head Post Office was conducted during the period from 15.11.2025 to 26.11.2025 wherein at Para 20 the point was raised alleging that periodical increments had been irregularly drawn by certain newly recruited Postman, including the applicant who did not possess/submit a valid driving license at the time of appointment as prescribed in the rules. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 vide Impugned Recovery Order No. Acctt./IAI/Nov-25/2025 dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure A/1) ordered a recovery of Rs. 1,64,654/-, Rs. 1,99,010/- and Rs. 1,99,010/- in the monthly installment of Rs. 5000/- from the salary of the applicants no. 1, 2 & 3 respectively. Learned counsel submitted that without even issuing show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing and even considering the representations of the applicants herein the respondents have started recovery from the salary of the applicants herein which is clear violation of principle of natural justice. 2.5 Being aggrieved with the said recovery, the applicants submitted various representations to the respondents whereby they have 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.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 5 :: O.A.No.459/2026

3. In support of the prayer sought in the OA, Ms. Vilas Purani, learned counsel for the applicants mainly argued as under:- 3.1 That the applicants herein are working as Postman (Group-C) and the action of the respondents to order recovery from their monthly salary that too after five years of their 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:-

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

PRATIK VYAS

:: 6 :: O.A.No.459/2026

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 Applicants at any point of time. The Applicants 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 Applicants service records. The Applicants 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 Applicants 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

PRATIK VYAS

:: 7 :: O.A.No.459/2026

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. It is submitted that the applicants herein applied for the examination while serving as Branch Postmasters/Gramin Dak Sevaks under the concerned divisions and the applicant no. 1 & 2 did not attach the copies of valid driving licenses with their applications and even they were also intimated about producing valid driving licence within stipulated time through letter dated 03.09.2019 (Annexure R/2). 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. 4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have inadvertently granted them increments which were not admissible and accordingly, vide impugned order directed recovery from the salary of the applicants which is just and proper. 4.3 Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Applicants 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

PRATIK VYAS

:: 8 :: O.A.No.459/2026

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. 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.

5. To counter the aforementioned submissions of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants 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

PRATIK VYAS

:: 9 :: O.A.No.459/2026

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 applicants 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.

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 Rs. 1,64,654/-, Rs. 1,99,010/- and Rs. 1,99,010/- in the monthly installment of Rs. 5000/- from the applicants no. 1, 2 & 3 respectively who are serving as Postman (Group 'C') on account of non-possession of valid driving license at the relevant time 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 applicants are working as Postman (Group-C). It is also undisputed that the Applicants 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:

PRATIK VYAS

:: 10 :: O.A.No.459/2026

"….(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 of the respondents the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is not applicable in the instant case is concerned, the same is not tenable in the eyes of law. 9.1 At this stage, 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 applicants herein are 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 recovery of Rs. 1,64,654/-, Rs. 1,99,010/- and Rs. 1,99,010/- in the monthly installment of Rs. 5000/- from the applicants no. 1, 2 & 3 respectively without serving a prior show-cause notice or affording a personal

PRATIK VYAS

:: 11 :: O.A.No.459/2026

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 Impugned Recovery Order No. Acctt./IAI/Nov- 25/2025 dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure A/1) whereby a recovery of Rs. 1,64,654/-, Rs. 1,99,010/- and Rs. 1,99,010/- is ordered from the salary of the applicants is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants 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 08.01.2026. 12.3 The Respondents are further directed to refund and re-credit the entire amount already deducted/recovered from the applicants’ salary pursuant to impugned order dated 08.01.2026 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