Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Shitla Prasad Ojha vs Union Of India on 4 December, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00361/2018 Shitla Prasad Ojha Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00361 of 2018
Dated, this 4th day of December, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Shitla Prasad Ojha aged about 52 years, son of Late Bachchuu Lal,
resident of village and Post Office-Pure Prasad, Tehsil - Bhinga,
District - Shrawasti, Presently working as Branch Post Master Post
Office Pure Prasad.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Rama Kant Dixit
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary Postal Department, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
3. Post Master General, Gorakhpur.
4. Superintendent of Post Office, Bahraich.
5. Inspector of Post Office, Bhinga Division, District Bahraich.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to pay fixation and recovery, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 4 to ensure the proper fixation of petitioners TRCA Rs.
14500-35480 in place of Rs. 12000-29380 in pursuance of the order dated 25.06.2018 issued by opposite party no. 1 as the work load of the petitioners branch each more than 4 hours as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the original application.
(ii) Any such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. The applicant was appointed to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) on 11.04.1983. Aggrieved with the Page 1 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00361/2018 Shitla Prasad Ojha Vs. UOI & Ors. inaction on part of the respondents to revise the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) in spite of several representations, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant states that respondents have issued guidelines dated 09.10.2009 regarding revision of wage structure of GDS for implementing recommendations of R S Nataraja Murti Committee. It is further stated that the respondents have allocated 143 work load points for 5.13 hours to his Branch Office and that he submitted several representations for revision of his TRCA accordingly, but the respondents have not taken any action in the matter.
4. The respondents state that GDS are paid TRCA on the basis of their workload which is calculated in points. Slabs were fixed for TRCA as per Nataraja Murti Committee report (6th Central Pay Commission, or 6th CPC) vide letter dated 09.10.2009. These were revised as per Kamlesh Chandra Committee report (7th CPC) vide letter dated 25.06.2018. The workload of the applicant was assessed at 143 points (25 points correspond to 1 hour of work) in 2013-14, but workload points in subsequent years are lower and his TRCA is fixed accordingly.
5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant contends that his TRCA was revised to Rs. 4575-85-7125 with effect from 01.01.2016 by the respondents vide order dated 17.10.2018, but it has been put on hold by them vide order dated 10.12.2018 and that he is being pressurized to withdraw the OA and that charge sheet has been issued to him in a mala fide manner.
6. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the respondents contend that the revision of applicant's TRCA with effect from 01.01.2016 on the basis of workload of year 2013-14 was erroneous, hence it has been withdrawn on 17.08.2018 and the revised TRCA paid to the applicant Page 2 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00361/2018 Shitla Prasad Ojha Vs. UOI & Ors. for the months of October and November 2018 has been recovered from him. It is further contended that the charge sheet dated 16.05.2018 issued to the applicant is based on reasons stated therein.
7. We have heard both the parties. There are two aspects which have emerged in the present dispute: pay fixation and recovery. 8.1 Addressing first the issue of recovery, it is noted that the subject matter of recoveries has been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2015) 4 SCC 334. In this case, the Apex Court was considering those cases wherein the private respondents were beneficiaries of a mistake committed by the employer, and on account of the said unintentional mistake, employees were in receipt of monetary benefits, beyond their due. Another essential feature in those cases was that the employees were as innocent as their employers, in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments - that is - they had not furnished any incorrect information which led to the mistake of making the higher payment, they had not made any misrepresentation, nor they had committed any fraud. The issue for adjudication was whether all the private respondents (employees), against whom an order of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the same to the employer. The issue was settled by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2014 in following manner:
"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).Page 3 of 5
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00361/2018 Shitla Prasad Ojha Vs. UOI & Ors.
(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."
(emphasis supplied) 8.2 In our opinion, the ratio in Rafiq Masih (supra) applies to GDS in Department of Posts also for the reason that in terms of the hardship caused due to recovery they are similarly circumstanced and, in fact, the TRCA admissible to them as part time workers is lower than the remuneration admissible to Group C and D employees. 8.3 Admittedly, in the instant case the recovery of TRCA paid to the applicant is on account of erroneous payment in the eyes of the respondents and it is not due to any fraud or misrepresentation on part of the applicant. Hence, in our view, such recovery is not permissible in terms of the criteria laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra).
9. Coming to the issue of revision of TRCA, in our view, the ends of justice would be served if the applicant makes a fresh representation to the respondents for their consideration and decision by way of a reasoned and speaking order.
10.1 In view of the foregoing, the recovery of TRCA paid to the applicant is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the applicant without interest within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10.2 The applicant shall have the liberty to prefer a fresh representation to the respondents on the matter of revision of TRCA Page 4 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00361/2018 Shitla Prasad Ojha Vs. UOI & Ors. within two weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order and the respondents are directed to consider and decide such fresh representation, if preferred, within a period of three months from the date of its receipt by way of a reasoned and speaking order to be communicated to the applicant.
8.3 This OA is disposed of in the above terms.
8.4 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
8.5 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela
Date: 2025.12.05 12:58:40 +05'30'
Page 5 of 5