NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8470 of 2022 Shakuntala Banchhor W/o Late Tularam Banchhor Aged About 74 Years R/o Imali Bagichapara, Mahamayapara, Bhilai - 3,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Education Block Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Principal Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Zero Point, Balodabazar Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Raajkumar Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 17/12/2025 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition:- 10.1. Hon'ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to call for the records of the case from the respondents; 10.2. Hon'ble Court may be kind be pleased to set aside the impugned order number: 3093/Stha./Sa.Bh.Ni./2022 dated 09.11.2022, passed by respondent no. 4 (ANNEXURE P/1) and impugned order number :- Anubhag/P.F.N.40/MBC ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.23 17:06:39 +0530 -2- dated 06.10.2022, passed by Respondent no. 5 (ANNEXURE P/2) by issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs. 10.3. Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 2. Fact of the case which emerges from the pleadings are that the petitioner was retired as Assistant Teacher in the respondent No. 1 department on 31.05.2010. After clearing all dues pension was duly sanctioned and all the other applicable retirement benefits including G.P.F. and gratuity have been released and pay to the petitioner after verifying the records. Suddenly by order dated 06.10.2022 the respondent No. 5 directed for recovery of alleged negative balance of Rs. 03,64,967/- along with penal interest. Then the respondent No. 4 also issued order dated 09.11.2022 directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount within one week. The order of recovery after sanction of all the retiremental benefits and pension that to after 10 years from retirement is wrong as it is against the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and also against the settle law. Hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Teacher with the respondent No.1 to 4 retired on 31/05/20210 on attaining the age of superannuation. During the service tenure, the petitioner was never informed about any negative balance in his provident fund. She further submits that after issuance of no dues certificate, the pension of the petitioner as well as the General Provident Fund and Grauity were also finalized and sanctioned. Thereafter, the entire retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner. After the lapse of twelve years of the retirement of the petitioner, the impugned order Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2 was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to deposit -3- Rs.03,64,967/- to the respondents within a period of one week. She further submits that the said order requires to be set aside as it has been issued after considerably period of delay of twelve years and as such the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the same. She placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No.2617/2013 dated 02.09.2024 in support of her contention. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that vide notice dated 26/07/2010 (Annexure R/1) the petitioner was informed about the negative balance in her GPF account. As there is negative balance, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with rapt attention. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31/05/2010. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the documents appended in the record, it is quite evidence that the pension, gratuity has also been sanctioned. As per submission of Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate, the entire retiral dues has already been paid. The question before this Court as to whether after 12 years of the retirement of the petitioner, the respondent can be allowed to recover certain negative balance shown in the GPF account of the petitioner. 7. The issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra in light of the judgment of this Court in case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (Supra). In that case this Court after analysis of provisions contained in GPF Rules, 1955 and placing reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in case of Ramnaryan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors (WA No. 357/2016, decided on 6-3-2017) held as under :- -4- “13. A careful perusal of the above-quoted provisions would show that recoverable Government dues shall be adjusted within a period of six months from the date of retirement and if no claim is made within that period, it shall be presumed that no Government claim is outstanding against him excluding water charges and house rent, and the amount of water charges and house rent shall be recovered within a period of one year from the date of retirement and thereafter, for such recovery, legal procedure has to be adopted. As such, Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 do not empower the State and its authorities to make any recovery of Government dues from pension/gratuity after expiry of six months/one year as per Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976. 14.As such, the provisions contained in Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 would show that they provide for recovery of Government dues and do not empower the State or its functionaries to make any adjustment of Government dues from pension/gratuity after expiry of 6 months as per sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 and water charges & house rent after a period of one year as provided in the proviso to Rule 66(4) of the Pension Rules of 1976. 16. In light of the aforesaid discussion, if the facts of the present case are examined, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the petitioner had already retired from service on 31-5-2008, whereas notice has been first time issued on 25-5-2010 for deposit of negative balance in his PF account of 2,85,711/- which has ₹ been reduced on recalculation to 2,57,114/- and by ₹ the impugned order dated 14-3-2013 (Annexure P-1), recovery order has been passed against the petitioner which is very much beyond the prescribed -5- period i.e. six months from the date of retirement and which had already expired on 30-11-2008. As such, the amount in question cannot be directed to be recovered vide order dated 14-3-2013 without following the prescribed procedure of approaching the civil court of competent jurisdiction. ” 8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petitions is allowed and Annexure P/1 and P/2 are quashed. 9. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish