1 2025:CGHC:50219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1578 of 2022 1 - Gayasuddudin S/o Marhum Hazi Shaifuddin Aged About 66 Years R/o House No. 1601, Ward No. 45, Near Kodubhai Mazil Mazar, Nayapara Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, R/o Public Education Dirctorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Principal, R/o Government Higher Secondary School, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Senior Treasury Officer R/o District Treasury Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - District Treasury Officer Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 08/10/2025 2 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by respondent No.5 (Annexure P-1) by which an amount of Rs.8,25,522/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. 2. The fact which reflects from the pleading is that the petitioner was working as accountant and superannuated on 31.05.2017 from the office of respondent No.3. The impugned notice was issued after about 5 years of his retirement indicating that a negative balance of Rs. 8,25,522/- was shown in his general provident fund account which requires to be recovered from the petitioner’s revised gratuity. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired in the year 2017 and the impugned order was passed after lapse of about 5 years which is not permissible. He placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Deniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2022 INSC 497 also in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (white Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. He further submits that no notice was given to him and prays that the said communication may be set aside. 4. A return has been filed, indicating a negative balance in the General Provident Fund (GPF) account of the petitioner; therefore, such recovery was directed to be made. It is mentioned that the petitioner while working as an accountant and maintaining service records, withdrew an excess amount from the GPF account of the petitioner and after verification it found negative to Rs.8,25,522/-. Therefore, impugned order was passed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since there was a negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner, failing to recover the amount would amount to undue enrichment to the petitioner. She further submits that out of total amount Rs.1,16,001/- has already been recovered from the total amount from the petitioner’s revised gratuity. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, from the fact it reflects that the petitioner was retired in the year 2017 and impugned communication letter was issued in the 2022 almost about 5 3 years after the retirement. Apart from this, nothing is on record to show that before passing such an order any show-cause notice was given to the petitioner. The recovery so made appears to be after considerable period of time. Considering the judgment in the case of Thomas Deniel (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra), in the opinion of this Court the recovery of Rs.8,25,522/- appears to be bad in law and is hereby set aside, therefore, Annexure P-1 is quashed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and respondents are directed to pay the deducted/withheld amount to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from today. 8. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 9. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.10.14 11:52:58 +0530