1 2025:CGHC:58460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2717 of 2023 1 - Fagu Ram Gangwal S/o Late Budh Ram Gangwal Aged About 74 Years Head Master (Retired), R/o Village Dargahan, P.O. Charama, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar - Kanker, Chhattiagarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh), 492002. 2 - Accountant General Accounts And Treasury, Zero Point, Baloda Bazaar Road, P. O. Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director School Education Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Block Charama, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 That this court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of appropriate nature to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the Respondent No.04. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner had been serving as a Head Master (Primary School) at Primary School Jhipatola, Charama, under Respondent No. 1. In anticipation of his superannuation, the Assistant Commissioner issued a letter dated 12.11.2010 notifying the petitioner of his impending retirement, pursuant to which he formally retired from service on 31.05.2011. Following his retirement, Respondent No. 2 issued a final payment computation sheet in respect of the petitioner’s account, which surprisingly reflected a negative balance of Rs. 1,99,470/– in his General Provident Fund (GPF) account. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 27.09.2011 demanding recovery of the alleged excess payment of Rs. 1,99,470/– from the petitioner and directed him to deposit the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the department and submitted a written clarification stating categorically that no excess payment had ever been made to him and, on the contrary, certain amounts were still payable to him by the department. After this written clarification, no action was taken by the respondents, no recovery proceedings were initiated, nor was any 3 communication issued to the petitioner. The prolonged silence on the part of the authorities reasonably led the petitioner to believe that the matter had been examined and resolved in his favour by the department. However, after an inexplicable gap of more than a decade, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 01.07.2022 to Respondent No. 4 directing that the alleged excess payment of Rs. 1,99,470/– be recovered from the petitioner, despite the fact that such recovery was contrary to the settled legal principles governing post-retirement recoveries. Acting upon this direction, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount, thereby initiating recovery proceedings more than eleven years after the petitioner’s superannuation. Aggrieved by this arbitrary and belated action, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this petition. 3. Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned action of the respondents in seeking to recover an alleged excess payment from the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner, who is now 74 years old and a retired Class-III employee, cannot be subjected to such harsh and unjust recovery proceedings, particularly when no fault can be attributed to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the petitioner had served the department throughout his career with an unblemished record, and there is not a single instance of misconduct, misrepresentation, or fraudulent withdrawal on his part. If any excess payment has allegedly been made, the same is entirely due to the negligence and 4 administrative lapse of the respondents, and the burden of such error cannot lawfully be placed upon a retired employee. Reliance is placed on the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Court has explicitly laid down categories of employees from whom recovery is impermissible, including (i) Class-III and Class-IV employees, (ii) retired employees or those due to retire within one year, and (iii) cases where recovery pertains to excess payment made more than five years prior to the order of recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner clearly falls within these protected categories, as he retired in 2011 and the attempt to recover the alleged amount is being made more than eleven years after his retirement, making the impugned action ex facie illegal and violative of the constitutional guarantee of equality and fairness. It is further urged that the respondents have initiated recovery unilaterally and without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned action also contravenes the Pension Rules, 1976, and imposes grave hardship upon an elderly pensioner who depends on his retiral dues for subsistence. Thus, the impugned order of recovery is arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of binding judicial precedents, and liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, submits that the present writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and substance and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is argued that the impugned order dated 21.07.2022, issued by respondent No.4/Block Education Officer, Charama, is 5 neither arbitrary nor illegal but has been passed strictly in furtherance of, and in consonance with, the communication and directives issued by respondent No.2/Office of the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, particularly the order dated 27.09.2011 and the subsequent reminder dated 01.07.2022. Both these communications categorically state that the petitioner’s GPF account is in deficit to the extent of Rs.1,99,470/-, resulting in a negative balance, and therefore the said amount is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. It is submitted that since the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the foundational orders dated 27.09.2011 and 01.07.2022 issued by the Accountant General, the present petition, which assails only the consequential order of respondent No.4, is not maintainable and does not serve any legal purpose. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner’s plea of delayed action is misconceived, as the recovery order was issued immediately after his retirement on 31.05.2011, but the petitioner deliberately failed to deposit the amount for more than 11 years, compelling respondent No.2 to issue a reminder in 2022. Thus, the delay, if any, is entirely attributable to the conduct of the petitioner, who has been aware of the liability since 2011. In these circumstances, the respondents assert that the impugned action is justified, lawful, and vested with full authority, and that the writ petition, being premature and procedurally defective, deserves outright dismissal. 5. Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 - the Principal Accountant General (A&E) would submit that the instant petition is misconceived and not maintainable against this office. It is stated that the PAG, being the custodian of GPF accounts, merely maintains 6 records and compiles the final payment computation based on schedules and debit/credit vouchers received from the Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs) through the treasuries. In the present case, the petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2011, and upon scrutiny of the records, a minus balance of Rs.1,99,470/- was correctly reflected in his GPF account. The petitioner and the department were duly informed and given an opportunity to point out discrepancies within two months, but no response or supporting documents were submitted. The office further issued a reminder on 01.07.2022 for settlement of the negative balance, acting strictly in accordance with rules and in the interest of safeguarding the State exchequer. However, the matter in dispute can be decided by the committee constituted by the State Government and the petitioner should have approached before the said committee for redressal of his grievance. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders may be passed to this effect and the petitioner will approach before the committee and the committee may be directed to decide the case of the petitioner within a stipulated period. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire record. 8. It is evident that the petitioner retired from the post of Head Master on 31.05.2011 and that a negative balance of Rs. 1,99,470/- was reflected in his GPF account as per the final payment computation prepared by the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Chhattisgarh. While the respondents contend that the recovery order issued by Respondent No.4/Block Education Officer on 21.07.2022 is in 7 consonance with prior communications from the Accountant General and necessary for safeguarding the State exchequer, the petitioner has highlighted that no recovery proceedings were initiated for more than eleven years, and the belated action causes undue hardship to a 74- year-old retired employee. 9. Considering the circumstances, the Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner requires appropriate redressal by a competent authority. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the committee constituted by the State Government for examination of such cases, along with a copy of this writ petition and all other relevant documents, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In turn, the committee is directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s case within three weeks from the date of receipt of the case along with all relevant documents. 10. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE