1 2025:CGHC:49089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6896 of 2017 Awadh Ram Atre S/o Late Goverdhan Prasad Atre, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Bhagodih, Post Office Muktaraja, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin 492001. 2 - District Education Officer, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Block Education Officer, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Treasury Officer, Janjgir- Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Divisional Joint Director, Account, Treasury And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Accountant General, Account And Pension Chhattisgarh. New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Senior Account Officer, P. F. N. 40, Office Of The Accountant General, Account/ Pension/ Fund, Near Zero Point, Near Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Res./State : Ms. Neelima Sigh Thakur, Panel Lawyer For Res. Nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. Raj Kumr Gupta, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 24.09.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be quashed the order passed by respondent No. 3(Annexure P.1). 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be directed to the respondents to produce entire record of service. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioner was working in the education Department on the post of Head-master at Government Middle School Sakreli (Baradwar), Block Education Office Sakti District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). the petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2009. He submits that after 8 years of retirement of the petitioner, the impugned order (annexure P/1) was issued by the respondent No. 3 by which Rs. 25964/- in the GPF account was shown to be negative balance and was directed to deposit the same through bank challan. He further submits that the said notice was issued almost 8 years of of the retirement of the petitioner and he has already been paid all retiral dues therefore, the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that negative balance was found in the GPF account of the petitioner therefore, the said notice was issued. Learned counsel for the accountant general/respondent Nos. 6 & 7 would submit that from time to time the balance of the GPF account sent to the 3 petitioner/employee and the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner for recovery of the said amount. 4. Be that as it may, perusal of the records it clearly indicates that the petitioner retired on 30.04.2009 and after 8 years of his retirement from his service, amount of Rs. 25964/- directed to be deposited by the petitioner which appears to be barred by limitation and in the settled position of law, if any recovery was to be made from the employee, it should have been done within a reasonable period of time after his retirement, therefore, this Court is of the opinion, that the impugned order is bad in law and the impugned order (annexure P/1) is liable to be and is hereby set aside. 5. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.29 13:38:29 +0530