IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of Government dues from a retired servant must occur within six months; otherwise, legal action is required.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The short question involved in the writ petition is, whether respondent No.3 is justified in directing recovery against the petitioner (retired Government servant) on 25-5-2010 after expiry of 6 months / 1 year from the date of his retirement in light of Rule 14(7) of the Chhattisgarh General Provident Fund Rules, 1955 read with Rules 65 & 66 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976?

2. The petitioner stood superannuated on 31-5-2008 from the Office of the Principal, Government High School, Somatola, Block Mohla, District Rajnandgaon. During his tenure, he contributed to the amount of provident fund under the Provident Fund Act. However, on 25-5-2010, respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that he has incurred negative balance of Rs.2,85,711/- against which he made representation, but it remained in vain and that negative balance has been recalculated and found to be of Rs.2,57,114/- along with penal interest payable by him. Feeling aggrieved against the subject recovery, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S)No.4521/2012 seeking retiral dues and the matter was referred to the Retiral Dues Committee to consider the grievance of the petitioner. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 14-3-2013 (Annexure P-1), respondent No.4 again passed recovery order of Rs.2,57,114/- along with penal interest after lapse of five years from the date of retirement of the petitioner feeling aggrieved against which this writ petition has been filed.

3. Return has been filed on behalf of the State/respondents No.1, 2 & 5 as also on behalf of the Office of the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur / respondents No.3 & 4 opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that in view of the negative balance of Rs.2,57,114/- as on the date of retirement of the petitioner in his GPF account, the petitioner is not entitled for the said amount and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Vibhor Govardhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had already retired from service way back on 31-5-2008 and only on 25-5-2010, respondent No.4 had informed the petitioner that his PF account has incurred a negative balance of Rs.2,85,711/- which has been reduced after recalculating the same to Rs.2,57,114/- along with penal interest after expiry of five years from the date of retirement of the petitioner which was not permissible in view of Rule 14(7) & 29 of the Chhattisgarh General Provident Fund Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘the GPF Rules of 1955’) read with Rules 64 & 66 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘the Pension Rules of 1976’). He would further submit that in view of the provisions contained in Rules 64 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976, no recovery from gratuity / pension can take place except in accordance with provisions in the Pension Rules of 1976 and after expiry of more than five years from the date of retirement of the petitioner, the impugned final order of recovery has been passed on 14-3-2013, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He would place reliance upon a Division Bench decision of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Ramnarayan Sharma v. State of M.P. and others, W.A.No.357/2016, decided on 6-3-2017 in support of his contention.

5. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 & 5, would support the impugned order and would submit that negative balance of Rs.2,85,711/- has been incurred by the petitioner in his PF account which has been informed to him vide Annexure P-3 on 25-5-2010, however, after recalculation, it has been reduced to Rs.2,57,114/- along with penal interest, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record carefully and thoroughly as well.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner stood superannuated on 31-5-2008 from the Office of the Pr