NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2613 of 2017 Mohan Lal Tiwari S/o Shri Chunni Lal Tiwari, Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Pachori, Police Station Saragaon, Tahsil Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director / Additional Director Account And Pension Directorate, Department of Education, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Education Officer, Janjgir Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., 4 - The Block Education Officer, Bamhnidih, Civil And Revenue District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate For Respondent /State : Shri Topilal Bareth, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition:- 10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the respondent authorities; 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed/set-aside the letter dated 22/05/2017 (Annexure P- 1), issued by the Respondent No.4/ Block Education Officer ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.08 12:56:35 +0530 -2- Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) to address the petitioner for recovery a sum of Rupees 1,43,860 from Pension of the petitioner after the retirement of more than 10 years; 10.3. Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favor of the petitioner. 2. Fact of the case which emerges from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as teacher in the year 1964 at Government Middle School Akaltara and after his appointment he had continued performing his duty with sincerity & Honestly, during the course of his duty period, he has been transferred to so many schools and his work was also found satisfactory and he had been retired on dated 31/05/2007 from the post of Head Master. That, after his retirement the petitioner has settled at Village Pachori and living there peacefully but after spending more than 10 years of his retirement, the Respondent No.4/Block Education Officer Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) has written a letter to address the petitioner and informed him about a sum of Rupees 1,43,860/-(one lakh forty three thousand eight hundred sixty rupees) will be recover from his Pension, which has extra been paid to him during the course of his retirement. Hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on as Teacher in the year 1964 at Government Middle School, Akaltara and retired on 31/05/2007 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Head Master. After retirement of the petitioner, the entire retiral dues have also been paid. After a lapse of 10 years, the impugned communication/order dated 22/05/2017 (Annexure P/1) was issued to the petitioner indicating therein that an amount of Rs.1,43,860/- is shown negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner and it was also observed that the said amount has to be recovered from the pension of the -3- petitioner. He submits that the petitioner retired in the year 2007 and amount which is shown to be negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner cannot be recovered after a lapse of 10 years. He further submits that the case of the petitioner’s is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No.2617/2013 dated 02.09.2024. Thus, impugned order deserve to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposing the submission and submits that the Accountant General Chhattisgarh wrote a letter dated 09/04/2017 indicating therein that there are negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner, therefore impugned communication / order was issued. Thus there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order/communication. Thus, writ petition deserve to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with rapt attention. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner retired in the year 2007 and the impugned communication/order was passed on 22/05/2017 (Annexure P-1), after a lapse of 10 years. 7. The issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra in light of the judgment of this Court in case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (Supra). In that case this Court after analysis of provisions contained in GPF Rules, 1955 and placing reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in case of Ramnaryan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors (WA No. 357/2016, decided on 6-3-2017) held 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 -4- claim is outstanding against him excluding water charges and house rent, and the amount of water charges and house rent shall be recovered within a period of one year from the date of retirement and thereafter, for such recovery, legal procedure has to be adopted. As such, Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 do not empower the State and its authorities to make any recovery of Government dues from pension/gratuity after expiry of six months/one year as per Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976. 14.As such, the provisions contained in Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 would show that they provide for recovery of Government dues and do not empower the State or its functionaries to make any adjustment of Government dues from pension/gratuity after expiry of 6 months as per sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 and water charges & house rent after a period of one year as provided in the proviso to Rule 66(4) of the Pension Rules of 1976. 16. In light of the aforesaid discussion, if the facts of the present case are examined, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the petitioner had already retired from service on 31-5-2008, whereas notice has been first time issued on 25-5-2010 for deposit of negative balance in his PF account of 2,85,711/- which has ₹ been reduced on recalculation to 2,57,114/- and by ₹ the impugned order dated 14-3-2013 (Annexure P-1), recovery order has been passed against the petitioner which is very much beyond the prescribed period i.e. six months from the date of retirement and which had already expired on 30-11-2008. As such, the amount in question cannot be directed to be recovered vide order dated 14-3-2013 without -5- following the prescribed procedure of approaching the civil court of competent jurisdiction. ” 8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, placing reliance on judgment of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (Supra), this writ petition is allowed and Annexure P/1 is quashed. 9. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish