1 2025:CGHC:16738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1950 of 2024 1 - Awadhesh Singh S/o Sukhpal Singh, Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Taraud, Police Station Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Scretary, Cooperative Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Head Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Collector -Cum Authorized Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Head Office, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.11 15:32:14 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramakant Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 11/04/2023 and also seeking a direction towards the respondent No.6 to refund the amount of Rs.1,18,689.97/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the service on 31/12/2015 from the post of Society Manager and thereafter, running from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance with regard to retiral dues. Even he has approached this Court by filing writ petitions on three occasions. After the orders of this Court as also the authorities of the Cooperative Societies, though the retiral dues have been released in favour of the petitioner, however, an amount of Rs.1,18,689.97/- has been with held without any rhyme or reason. On account of impugned action on the part of the authorities, the petitioner, who is a Septuagenarian, is facing hefty financial difÏculties. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the admissible retiral dues have already been released in favour of the petitioner, however, an amount of Rs. 1,18,689.97/- has been deducted on account of outstanding in the loan amount of the petitioner. The impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. This Court vide order dated 08/05/2024, directed both the parties to file their respective afÏdavits and the bank was directed to clarify when the loan was obtained by the petitioner, whether the loan was declared Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and when it has been declared Non-Performing Assets (NPA) by the Bank, whether the interest has to be recovered even after the retirement or not and why the recovery proceedings were initiated against the employee even he was retired from the services and after lapse of 10 years when the Deputy Registrar and the Join Registrar have passed the order for payment of retiral dues with 6% interest and why the recovery of Rs. 1,18,689.67/- has been passed by them, as the afÏdavit filed by the respondent No. 6 & 7 is silent on the query put by this Court. 6. In compliance of order of this Court, the bank/respondent Nos.6 & 7 field their afÏdavits stating at para-4 as under:- “It is most respectfully and humbly submitted that, the loan account No. 606022076614 of the petitioner was declared Non-performing assets on 26/3/2018 by the bank, that the petitioner retiral dues has already been paid in compliance of the order passed by the deputy Registrar and Join Registrar but amount of Rs 1,18,689 has been deducted because the petitioner has obtain loan from the bank, and he has also executed an 4 agreement with the bank and also singed demand promissory note in which it has been accepted by the petitioner that if he fails to return the loan amount he will pay the loan amount with 101/2% (Ten and half percent) per annum. Copies of relevant documents are annexed as ANNEXURE-D-5” 7. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the petitioner availed the loan from the bank and the said loan amount was declared as NPA on 26/03/2018. Since there is an outstanding towards the loan amount, the respondents have rightly deducted the amount of Rs.1,18,689.67/- from the account of the petitioner, the same cannot be stated to be illegal and arbitrary because if a person availed the loan, he ought to have repay the same. 8. In the result, the writ petition sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep