2026:CGHC:445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6592 of 2018

1 - Girja Lal Sinha S/o Late Ramjatan Lal Aged About 70 Years Retired Government Employe As Accountant, R/o Singh Colony, Near Jodapipal, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Civil And Revenue District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department , Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - The Divisional Forest Officer North Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

3 - The Divisional Forest Officer Balrampur Division, Balrampur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

4 - The Account General Office In Front Of Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - The Account Officer Office Of Account And Treasury, Zero Point, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj K. Sinha, Adv For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv For respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P. L.

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

Order on Board

05/01/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge in this writ petition is to an order/letter dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by Account Officer, office of Account and Treasury/ respondent No.5 whereby an order of recovery of amount of Rs. 74,942/- was issued stating it to be an excess withdrawal from the GPF account of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was employed as an Accountant in the Forest Department under the respondents and retired on 31.07.2009, upon attaining the age of superannuation. He submits that the impugned recovery order was passed after a lapse of about 10 years, which is legally impermissible. This position is supported by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dharmu Ram Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others passed in WPS No. 2617 of 2013 decided on 02.09.2024. The settled law dictates that the recovery of negative balance from the GPF account of the petitioner cannot be initiated beyond 6 months from the retirement of the petitioner. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the impugned order was passed after about 10 years, therefore, the order is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions and submit that a negative balance was shown in the account of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order was passed. The initial notices were issued in the year 2010 itself.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. A perusal of Annexure P-2 indicates that an amount of Rs.74,942/- was shown as a negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner. It appears that an advance was paid to the petitioner in the year 1980-81, which has been denied by the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the impugned order was passed after a considerable period of delay. The issue has previously come up before this Court in the case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (supra), placing reliance on the provisions of GPF Rules, 1955, and also a decision of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Ramnarayan Sharma v. State of M.P. and others passed in W.A. No. 357/2016, decided on 6-3-

2017.

5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (supra)

observed in Paras 13 to 16 as under:-

“13. A careful perusal of the above-quoted provisions would show that recoverable Government dues shall be adjusted within a period of six months from the date of retirement and if no claim is made within that period, it shall be presumed that no Government claim is outstanding against him excluding water charges and house rent, and the amount of water charges and house rent shall be rec