Panchlal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sachin Singh Rajput, J

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s);

10.1) That, the recovery order of Rs. 2,18,030 dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) and 03.05.2017 passed by respondent no. 5 may be set aside/quashed and respondents be directed to re calculate the GPF amount in account of petitioner as per law and pay the same to him with 9% interest annually.

10.2) Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The fact of this case in nutshell is that this petition has been preferred against the illegal recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,18,030/- from the petitioner after his retirement. Respondent No. 5, subsequent to the petitioner’s retirement, issued a recovery notice pursuant to the objections raised by the offices of Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, alleging excess withdrawal of the petitioner’s General Provident Fund (GPF) amount. It is submitted that the respondents have initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged excess withdrawal of GPF along with 2.5% interest, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said recovery is a result of mere miscalculation. No notice or opportunity of representation has ever been provided to the petitioner prior to effecting the impugned recovery. The petitioner is not even aware of the specific amount alleged to have been overdrawn or the basis of such calculation. The impugned recovery order, therefore, is arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the settled principles of service jurisprudence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as an Accountant under the respondent–State Government and retired from service on 13.09.2011 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He submits that the impugned orders (Annexures P/1 and P/2) were issued by the respondent authorities indicating that a sum of Rs. 2,18,030/- was reflected as a negative balance in the petitioner’s GPF account, which was directed to be recovered from him along with 2.5% interest. The said impugned orders were passed on 24.04.2017 and 03.05.2017, i.e., after nearly six years of the petitioner’s retirement. He contends that the alleged recovery of the negative balance shown in the petitioner’s GPF account is barred by limitation, and the respondents cannot recover the said amount after the expiry of six months from the date of his retirement. For such recovery, the only recourse available to the respondents is to file a civil suit. He further submits that an identical issue had come up before this Court in WPS No. 2617/2013 (Dharamu Ram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), wherein this Court, vide order dated 02.09.2024, has laid down the aforesaid legal position. Therefore, as the alleged recovery on account of negative balance is barred by limitation, the impugned orders (Annexures P/1 and P/2) deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submit that the amount reflected in the impugned orders (Annexures P/1 and P/2) represents a negative balance in the petitioner’s GPF account. They contend that a notice was duly issued to the petitioner within three months of his retirement, and therefore, it cannot be said that the recovery of the said amount is barred or impermissible. It is thus submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

Upon consideration of the rival submissions and after examining the judgment rendered by M.P. Court in the case of Ramnarayan Sharma v. State of M.P. and others, W. A. No. 357/2016, decided on 06.03.2017 in case of Dharamu Ram Mandavi (supra), this Court laid down the law as under:-

“Office of the Accountant General cannot recover / adjust the amount of negative balance from the retiral dues of retired Government servant after a period of six months from the date of retirement by adjustment, for that, the Government has to follow the legal procedure of approaching civil court.”

There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner retired on on 13.09.2011, whereas the impugned orders (Annexures P/1 and P/2) were issued on 24.04.2017 and 03.05.2017 respectively. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 2617/2013. Accordingly, the impugned orders (Annexures P/1 and P/2) are hereby quashed.

Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.