1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5564 of 2022 1 - Manharan Lal Chandrawanshi S/o Late Bindu Lal Chandrawanshi Aged About 73 Years R/o Village - Changori, Post - Bathena, Tahsil - Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Office Of The Principal Accountant General Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director Treasury Department - Durg,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For State / Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 03/03/2026 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s):- 2 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue an appropriate writ in the quash the impugned order of recovery Annexure P/1 dated 27/06/2022 passed by the respondent and hold that the petitioner. 10.3 That, The Hon'ble Court may please direct the respondents that the recovery made till date be returned to the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief or pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as Lower Division Teacher with the respondent No. 4 and retired on 31.07.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. He submits that the impugned order (Annexrue P-1) was issued on 27.06.2022 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,17,054/- an amount of negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner by respondents. He further submits that said impugned order was passed on 27.06.2022 nearly eleven years after his retirement. He contends that alleged recovery of the negative balance shown in the petitioner GPF account is barred by limitation and respondents cannot recover the said amount after expiry of ten months from the date of his retirement. He further submits that identical issue had came up before this Court in WPS No. 2617 of 2013 (Dharmu Ram Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), wherein this Court vide its order dated 02.09.2024 has 3 laid down the law of the aforesaid legal position. Therefore, as alleged recovery on account of negative balance is barred by limitation, the impugned order Annexure P-1 and computation sheet Annexure P-1-A deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount reflected in the impugned order the present and negative balance in the petitioner GPF account. They further submits that the petitioner has withdrawn the above stated GPF amount from his GPF account and whereby undue investment to him. They submit that this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. 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.” 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner retired on 31.07.2011, whereas the impugned orders (Annexures P/1) was issued on 27.06.2022. 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. 4 Accordingly, the impugned orders (Annexures P/1) is hereby quashed. 7. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan