1 2025:CGHC:53733 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2056 of 2022 1 - Govind Ram Pal S/o Late Shri Bishri Ram Pal Aged About 67 Years Retired, Head Cleark - 3, District Education Officer, District Durg Chhattisgarh R/o Q.No. 6 Housing Board, Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Accountant General (Accounts And Hakdari) Chhattisgarh Raipur. 3 - District Education Officer Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Mr. G. P. Mathure, Advocate For State / Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. GA For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 03/11/2025 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s):- 2 10.1 That, letter annexure p-1 ordering the petitioner to pay Rs.98,554-00 may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order the respondents to pay to petitioner shown in pass book of GPF Account shown by respondent no.3 for payment to petitioner, which has been sent to respondent no.2 after retirement with penal inrteret as the same is being delayed since more than 5 years after retirement. 10.3 That cost of litigation and any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly also be awarded. 2. Facts of the case which emerges in this writ petition is that the petitioner has been retired as Head Clerk by District Education Officer, Durg on 31.10.20216. The respondent No. 2 has issued letter of recovery for Rs. 98,554-00.on the basis of letter dated 10-12-2021 of Accountant General (Accounts and Hakdari). Same is without jurisdiction order of recovery as after retirement of employee issue of order of recovery has been held as not permissible by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Recovery order is against rule 57 of C.G.Pension Rules 1976, which says that Head of Department will undertake the work of preparing pension papers in form 6, section 59 of same rules says that if any deficiency or imperfection or omission which still remains in the service record shall be ignored at this stage and the qualifying service shall be proceeded with on the basis of entries in service record, whatever the degree of perfection to which it might have been possible to bring them by that time. In similar case Hon'ble High Court of Chhattishgarh vide W.P.S. No. 4610 of 2017 G.S. Mahalwar vs. State of C.G. has stayed and quashed order of recovery. Hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as Head Clerk with the respondent No. 3 and retired on 31.10.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. He submits that the impugned order (Annexrue P- 1) and computation sheet (Annexure P-1-A) was issued on 04.01.2022 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 98,554/- an amount of negative balance 3 in the GPF account of the petitioner by respondent No. 3. He further submits that said impugned order was passed on 04.01.2022 nearly six years after his retirement. He contends that alleged recovery of the negative balance shown in the petitioner GPF account is barred by limitation and respondents cannot recover the said amount after expiry of six months from the date of his retirement. For such recovery, the only recourse available to the respondents is to file a civil suit. He further submits that identical issue had came up before this Court in WPS No. 2617 of 2013 (Dharmu Ram Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), wherein this Court vide its order dated 02.09.2024 has laid down the law of the aforesaid legal position. Therefore, as alleged recovery on account of negative balance is barred by limitation, the impugned order Annexure P-1 and computation sheet Annexure P-1-A deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount reflected in the impugned order the present and negative balance in the petitioner GPF account. They further submits that the petitioner has withdrawn the above stated GPF amount from his GPF account and whereby undue investment to him. They submit that this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and after examining the judgment rendered by M.P. Court in the case of Ramnarayan Sharma v. State of M.P. and others, W. A. No. 357/2016, decided on 06.03.2017 in case of Dharamu Ram Mandavi (supra), this Court laid down the law as under:- “Office of the Accountant General cannot recover / adjust the amount of negative balance from the retiral dues of retired Government servant after a period of six months from the date of 4 retirement by adjustment, for that, the Government has to follow the legal procedure of approaching civil court.” 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner retired on on 31.10.2016, whereas the impugned orders (Annexures P/1) and computation sheet (Annexure P-1-A) was issued on 04.01.2022 respectively. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 2617/2013. Accordingly, the impugned orders (Annexures P/1) and computation sheet (Annexure P-1-A) are hereby quashed. 8. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan