1 2025:CGHC:5097 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5696 of 2022 1 - Vinayak Manapure S/o Lt Pundlikrao Manapure Aged About 64 Years Retired Senior Horticulture Development Officer R/o Qtr No. A/4, Anushtha Residency Junwani, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Horticulture, And Farm Forestry, Fourth Floor, Block 2, Hod Building, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhatitsgarh. 3 - Assistant Director, Horticulture, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Director, Treasury, Pension And Accounts, Raipur, District Rapaipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Officer Of The Accountant General, Zero Point, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajeet Singh, GA For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.03.28 17:24:47 +0530 2 Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent/s and Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and quash the Impugned order dated 02.06.2022 Annexure P/1 issued by respondent No.2, quash impugned order dated 26.5.2022 Annexure P/2 issued by respondent No.3, quash impugned order dated 18.5.2009 Annexure P/3 issued by Respondent No. 2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondents to refund the petitioner the amount of Rs.7,22,348/- alongwith an interest of 10% per annum. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondents to release the pending bills submitted by the petitioner as per letter dated 25.2.2022. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondents to release the full pension in favour of petitioner and the respondents may be directed to release the amount of Gratuity alongwith interest at 10% per annum together with arrears of Pension. 10.5. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3 3. The facts of the case as projected in this petition are like that on the basis of some audit objections for the period commencing from April 2003 to April 2008 the respondents initiated recovery proceedings to the tune of Rs.7,22,348/- together with penal interest of 12 % per annum. Upon issuance of the recovery order the petitioner offered his explanation that the advance amount received by the petitioner from the respondents offices was duly paid to the concerned NGO's for providing training to the agriculturists. The NGO's submitted their bills/vouchers at a belated stage therefore the said bills/vouchers towards proof of payment of Rs.3,43,389/- could not be sent to the respondent offices within time. It is reiterated that the NGO's had imparted necessary training to the agriculturists and the bills/vouchers were duly sent to the respondents towards proof of payment of Rs.3,43,389/-. After the issuance of recovery order the petitioner submitted before the respondents that he had received advance amount of Rs.3,10,000/- towards establishment of Banana Processing Plant and the amount received as advance for establishment of Banana Processing Plant was duly utilized for the establishment of the said Plant and the petitioner offered the photographs and physical evidence to prove that the Banana Processing Plant has been established. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2020 and was retired from service. The amount of GPF, GIS and leave encashment were 4 paid to the petitioner but till date the respondents have not released Pension and amount of Gratuity in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have till date not paid the pending bills submitted by the petitioner for the expenses incurred by the petitioner in his personal account for the performance of official duties. The petitioner by the way of the instant writ petition prays for a direction to quash the impugned orders of recovery and the imposition of interest. The petitioner further prays for the refund of the amounts recovered illegally from the petitioner in violation of Rule 16 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter reffered to as ‘the CCA Rules’), and the respondents may be directed to release the pending bills submitted by the petitioner and the respondents may be directed to immediately release the Pension and Gratuity in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner relied upon Rule 10 and Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966. The petitioner further relied upon the Rule 9 and Rule 65 of the Pension Rules 1976 in as much as no prior consent was obtained from Governor before stoppage of Pension. The amount which is proposed to be withheld for adjustment does not falls within the meaning of Ascertainable Government Dues and therefore the impugned action of the respondent State Authorities are illegal and void. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original order of recovery dated 18.05.2009, by which an amount to the tune of Rs.7,22,348/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner 5 itself is not in accordance with law and against the said order the petitioner raised objections on 01.06.2009, however it was not considered. Thereafter he was again issued notice whereby the petitioner has been imposed penalty regarding the interest of the said amount which has already been deposited i.e. to the tune of Rs.7,22,348/-. Subsequently, vide order dated 26.05.2022, again notice was issued to the petitioner stating that though he has paid an amount of Rs.7,22,348/- however, the interest on the same has not been paid as such he is required to deposit a sum of Rs.9,34,692/-. The petitioner immediately moved a representation 24.01.2022 which was received on 25.01.2022 before the concerned authority, however the said representation against the order dated 26.05.2022 was finally rejected by the respondents vide order dated 02.06.2022. 5. Before issuance of memo/letter dated 26.05.2022, several notices were issued to the petitioner and in turn the petitioner vide representation dated 24.01.2022 has stated that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.7,22,384/-, however, now he is being directed to deposit a sum of Rs.9,34,692/- which is in respect of interest of principal amount which has already been paid by him. The petitioner fairly submitted that he has deposited the actual amount which has been demanded by the authority. Now again he has been victimized for payment for interest amount on the said principal amount, as such he seeks indulgence of this Court while quashing order dated 26.05.2022, 02.06.2022 and 18.05.2009. 6 6. The petitioner is confining his relief to the amount of interest to the tune of Rs.9,34,692/- and he is praying that this notice may be quashed and the respondents may be directed not to recover any further amount from the petitioner. This amount relates to the amount of interest payable on actual amount Rs.7,22,348/- which was already paid by the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed as the recovery has been made against the petitioner on account of advances being taken by the petitioner in the year 2009 and the petitioner had taken advance to the tune of Rs.7,22,348/- from the department for the purpose of implementation of schemes, however, he used the aforesaid amount for his personal work as a result the answering respondent No.2 had passed the order dated 18.05.2009, thereby directing to recover the aforesaid amount of government fund from the petitioner with 12% interest. Excess payment has been made which has been recovered from the petitioner, since the excess payment has been made to the tune of Rs.7,22,348/-, though the petitioner has paid the amount to the tune of Rs.7,22,348/- however, he is liable to pay the amount of interest as the principal amount has not been paid and it was remain outstanding since 2009, therefore the amount of interest is liable to be paid by the petitioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the material available on record. 7 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has received advance amount to the tune of Rs.7,22,348/- which was in respect of some of the development work. 10. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.7,22,348/- before the authorities, though he was not liable to pay such amount as the petitioner has not misrepresented the authorities for getting such amount, however, since the petitioner is confining his relief to the extent that the impugned notice dated 26.05.2022, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.9,34,692/- on account of interest amount on actual amount of Rs.7,22,348/-, as he is not liable to pay amount of the recovery notice issued against him in the light Rule 10 and Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 and same is required to be quashed. 11. This Court is of the view that though the petitioner was not liable to pay amount of excess payment made to him as the amount has already been paid, as such without entering into the aforesaid aspects, the further notice by which the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.9,34,692/- as interest on actual amount Rs.7,22,348/-, I am of the view that entire affairs of the respondents are illegal and arbitrary and they can not be allowed to recover the said amount. The argument advanced by the counsel for the respondents that the petition was filed at a very belated stage, for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.34376 of 8 2012, in which the aforesaid aspect has been dealt with and it has been held that the petitioner's claim requires to be examined irrespective of the delay occurred in approaching the High Court, and as such the delay term cannot be accepted. 12. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no delay in approaching this Court and as such the impugned notice dated 26.05.2022 is hereby quashed. 13. Consequently, the action of the State Government imposing interest on the petitioner directing to pay Rs.9,34,692/- as interest on actual amount Rs.7,22,348/- is hereby quashed. 14. The respondents are directed to refund the petitioner the amount of Rs.7,22,348/- within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondents authorities. It is further directed that in case, the respondents make any default in releasing the amount of Rs.7,22,348/- in favour of the petitioner within the aforesaid period of 90 days, the respondents shall be liable to pay an interest on the entire aforesaid amount at the rate of 6% per annum, till the date of full payment is made to the petitioner. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi