1 Writ Petition (S) No.3559 of 2017 2025:CGHC:14121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3559 of 2017 1 - Yashwant Kumar Hota S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Hota, Aged About 62 Years Retired Upper Division Teacher, Government School Badetemari, R/o Basna Bazar Road , Via And Tahsil Basna District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Accountant General Of Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Block Education Officer, Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For State-Respondents No.1 & 3 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate 2 Writ Petition (S) No.3559 of 2017 SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 24.03.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the memo (Annexure P/2), whereby the amount of GPF in the account of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,56,482/- (Minus Three Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Two Only) has been shown in negative and the same has also been directed to be recovered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh General Provident Fund Rules clearly contemplates that before any advance is disallowed, the subscriber shall be given an opportunity to explain to the sanctioning authority as to why the repayment should not be enforced, but in the case of the petitioner the impugned memo (Annexure P/2) has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is clear violation of the said provision and, therefore, the impugned memo (Annexure P/2) is liable to be quashed. 3 Writ Petition (S) No.3559 of 2017 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned memo (Annexure P/2) and prays for dismissal of this instant petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be relevant to notice sub-rule (6) of Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh General Provident Fund Rules, which reads as under :- “16. (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) xxxx (5) xxxx (6) if an advance has been drawn by a subscriber and the advance granted is subsequently disallowed before the repayment is completed, the whole or balance of the amount withdraw, shall forthwith be repaid by the subscriber to the Fund or in default, be ordered to be sum or in monthly installments not exceeding twelve, as may be directed by the authority as specified in [sub- rule (1) of Rule 15]: Provided that, before such advance is disallowed, the subscriber shall be given an opportunity to explain to the sanctioning authority in writing and within fifteen days of the receipts of the communication, as to why the repayment should not be enforced, and if an explanation is submitted by the 4 Writ Petition (S) No.3559 of 2017 subscriber within the said period it shall be referred to the administrative department for decision and if no explanation within the said period is submitted by him, the repayment of the advance shall be enforced in the manner prescribed in this sub-rule.” 6. In view of the above quoted provision, it is categorically clear that before such advance is disallowed, the subscriber shall be given an opportunity to explain to the sanctioning authority in writing as to why the repayment should not be enforced. Therefore, since the impugned memo (Annexure P/2), whereby the amount of GPF in the account of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,56,482/- (Minus Three Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Two Only) has been shown in negative and the same is also directed to be recovered, has been issued in violation of said provision vis-a-vis without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned memo (Annexure-P/2) is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the concerned respondent No.02/Accountant General of Chhattisgarh with a direction to pass fresh order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law/relevant rules. 5 Writ Petition (S) No.3559 of 2017 7. With aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s) this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA