Recovery of mistakenly paid increments is impermissible from Group C employees.

The three applicants were Group ‘C’ Postmen.

Under the Department of Posts Postman and Mail Guard (Group ‘C’ Post) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2020, a Postman appointed without a valid driving licence was not to earn periodical increments until producing one, subject to the terms of the Rules.

The applicants’ increments were paid by the Department; following an internal audit, the respondents ordered recovery of ₹1,64,654 from applicant 1 and ₹1,99,010 each from applicants 2 and 3, in monthly instalments of ₹5,000.

The applicants challenged the recovery, contending that they were Group ‘C’ employees, had not misrepresented any facts, and had received no prior notice or hearing.

The respondents maintained that the increments had been paid inadvertently and were not admissible under the Rules.

1. Whether the respondents could recover the allegedly excess increments from the applicants, who were Group ‘C’ employees, in light of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer).

2. Whether ordering recovery without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing rendered the recovery action procedurally unlawful.

The Tribunal applied the Department of Posts Postman and Mail Guard (Group ‘C’ Post) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2020, including Note 3, which restricts the earning of periodical increments by an appointee who lacks a valid driving licence, subject to the Rule’s terms.

It relied principally on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, which identifies recovery of mistaken excess payments from Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees as ordinarily impermissible.

The Tribunal also relied on Chaturbhuj Rathore v. Union of India and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Shri Ramdhan Gupta, as cited in the order, for the proposition that the protections identified in paragraph 12 of Rafiq Masih are distinct and independent.

It further applied the principle of natural justice that an administrative action carrying civil or financial consequences should not be taken without procedural fairness.

The Tribunal treated the applicants’ Group ‘C’ status as sufficient to bring the recovery within the protection identified in Rafiq Masih, irrespective of whether the payments had continued for five years.

It also accepted that the applicants had neither induced the payment of increments through misrepresentation or fraud nor controlled the Department’s decision to grant them; the increments had been sanctioned and paid by the respondents.

The respondents’ reliance on the 2020 Rules and the alleged administrative error did not, in the Tribunal’s view, justify recovery from these applicants.

The absence of prior notice or a hearing provided an additional procedural ground against the recovery action.

It directed the respondents to stop further deductions and to refund or re-credit amounts already recovered within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.