1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2869 of 2017 1 - Maan Singh Keram, S/o Rahipal, Aged About 69 Years R/o Dengrapara Balod, Tehsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Education Officer, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh 3 - District Treasury Officer, Tehsil Office Compound, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer, Block Daundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Accountant General, Accountants And Claims Chhattisgarh Raipur Near Zero Point Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent 1 to 4/ State : Shri Topilal Baresh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 24/11/2025 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition - 2 i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the recovery letter dated 12/05/2017 (Annexure P/1). ii. the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case. iii. Cost of the petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the respondent No.1 department on 25/01/1972. He submits that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30/11/2010. After 7 years of the retirement of the petitioner, respondents, on 12/05/2017, issued a letter of recovery of excess amount of Rs.1,12,344/- from the GPF account. He submits that as the petitioner has already retired from service seven years back, the impugned order cannot sustain to the scrutiny of this Court and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, this writ petition was filed. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors. (WPS No.2617/2013) passed on 02/09/2024. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents submit that excess withdrawal was made from the GPF account of the petitioner and therefore, when the mistake came to surface, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) was passed. Shri Rajkumar Gupta submits that the notice was issued in the year 2011 itself (Annexure R/1). Therefore, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner retired from service on 30/11/2010. The impugned order (Annexure P/1) was issued on 12/05/2017 i.e. after lapse of about 7 years. There is no dispute that the impugned order was passed regarding recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner. The issue is no longer res integra in the light of decision of this Court in the case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (supra) in which relying upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramnarayan Sharma v. State of M.P. and ors. passed in W.A.No.357/2016 decided on 06/03/2007 and also GPF rules of 1955, this Court observed in paragraph 16 as under - 3 “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 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. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in making recovery for adjustment of GPF debit balance directing recovery of 2,57,114/- is declared unlawful. …….” 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P1) is set aside reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.11.26 14:20:45 +0530