1 2025:CGHC:60220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3163 of 2019 Bhagat Ram Sonwani S/o Late Salik Ram Sonwani, Aged About 67 Years, Retired Principal, R/o Village Dabo, Post Fosterpur, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, General Administrative Department (Pension Redressal Committee), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Accountant General Of Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer, Gourela, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 14.3.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Pension Redressal Committee, whereby a negative balance of Rs.2,51,439/- was determined and recovery of the said amount was directed in accordance with law. 2. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court vide order dated 17.2.2017 passed in WPS No.811/2017 disposed of the said petition by observing that the Pension Redressal Committee, after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the Department and after examining the relevant documents, shall consider the same and pass an order in accordance with law. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the Pension Redressal Committee has passed the impugned order. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the finding arrived at by the Pension Redressal Committee in the order 3 impugned is neither just nor proper. He would further submit that the Department itself has reported that certain withdrawals were not made by the concerned employee. He would submit that after expiry of six months from the date of retirement, recovery is permissible only by taking recourse to the legal procedure i.e. by filing a suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court under Rules 65 & 66 of the Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. This position has been explicitly elucidated in matter of Dharmu Ram Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No.2617 of 2013 decided on 2.9.2024) {2024:CGHC:33661}. 4. Learned counsel for the respective respondents would not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition that under Rule 66, if any recovery is ascertainable, the proper course is to file a suit for recovery before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction or to take any other lawful course available to the authorities. He further submits that by the impugned order, only a direction has been issued to recover the amount in accordance with law. Therefore, the recommendation falls within the jurisdiction of the said Committee, which had been directed by this Court to pass a speaking order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Pension Redressal Committee issued such a direction after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides and after examining the facts relating to the deposits and withdrawal of the petitioner employee. Further, 4 the Committee found a negative balance amounting to Rs.1,91,183/-. With penal interest charged at the rate of 2.5% up to October 2017, the aggregate recoverable amount from the petitioner totaled Rs.2,51,439/-. Furthermore, a direction was given that the amount shall be recovered in accordance with the applicable rules. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as the Committee has only recommended that proper recourse to lawful mode(s) be taken to recover the said amount. 8. Consequently, the petition bereft of any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna