1 2026:CGHC:6907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 132 of 2015 Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Late Dukhi Ram Sahu Aged About 64 Years Retired Head Master Primary School Tanaud Block Pamgarh District Janjgir Champa C.G. R/o Village Tanaud P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through The Secretary, School. Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer, Janjgir - Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Block Education Officer Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Accountant General Through Its Accounts Officer H.Q. Near Vidhan Sabha Baloda Bazar Raod Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.19 11:15:26 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 06/02/2026 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, a retired Head Master of Primary School, Tanaud, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ/direction to the respondents for payment of his General Provident Fund (GPF) amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he retired from service on 31.10.2013 and the necessary papers for release of his GPF were forwarded to the office of the Accountant General, the amount has not been paid to him till date. It is contended that despite the deduction slips showing a balance amount of Rs. 2,34,621/- in his GPF account and despite earlier directions issued by this Court in the petitioner’s previous writ petitions, the respondents have failed to finalize the matter and release the said amount. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking payment of the aforesaid GPF amount along with interest. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction for payment of GPF amount Rs. 2,34,621/- to the petitioner. 3 b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the interest @ 15% p. a. on the GPF amount. c. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper. d. Cost of petition may kindly be allowed.” 3. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 23.08.1972 in the School Education Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. During the course of his service, he was promoted to the post of Head Master, Primary School, vide order dated 08.09.2007 and continued to discharge his duties till the age of superannuation. The petitioner ultimately retired from service on 31.10.2013 from Primary School, Tanaud, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa. ******* After his retirement, the respondent No.3 – Block Education Officer, Pamgarh forwarded the necessary documents along with the application of the petitioner to the office of the respondent No.4, Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, for payment of the General Provident Fund (GPF) amount by letter dated 30.12.2013, enclosing the original GPF passbook of the petitioner. As per the last deduction slip issued by the office of the Accountant General on 13.07.2012, the petitioner’s GPF account reflected a balance amount of Rs.2,02,680/-. 4 ******* Subsequently, however, the office of the Accountant General issued a communication dated 03.03.2014 to the petitioner indicating a minus balance of Rs.9,26,570/- in the petitioner’s GPF account and calling upon him to submit an explanation in this regard. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.1618 of 2014. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.03.2014 with a direction that the matter be referred to the Retiral Dues Committee for appropriate consideration and that necessary details be submitted before the Accountant General. ******* Despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner did not receive any response from the concerned authorities. Consequently, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.3579 of 2014. By order dated 31.07.2014, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit the relevant documents and representations before the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh. ******* In compliance with the said order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 08.08.2014 before the Retiral Dues Committee as well as before the office of the Accountant General enclosing all the relevant documents. Thereafter, a deduction slip dated 02.07.2014 was issued showing a balance amount of Rs.2,34,621/- in the petitioner’s GPF account. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 issued a letter dated 08.09.2014 to respondent No.3 directing him to verify and send the details regarding the deductions made in the 5 GPF account so that the matter could be placed before the Retiral Dues Committee. ******* However, the respondent No.3 did not furnish the required details despite the said communication. The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 10.11.2014 before the Retiral Dues Committee and forwarded copies to the concerned authorities requesting for settlement of his GPF claim. In response thereto, the Accountant General once again issued a communication dated 19.11.2014 to the respondent No.3 seeking the relevant details regarding the deductions. Despite the said communications, the required information has not been submitted by the respondent No.3 and the petitioner’s claim for payment of his GPF amount has not been finalized. ******* According to the petitioner, in view of the last deduction slip reflecting a balance of Rs.2,34,621/- in his GPF account, he is entitled to receive the said amount along with interest. As the authorities have failed to release the said amount despite repeated representations and earlier orders of this Court, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking payment of the GPF amount along with interest. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 23.08.1972 and after rendering long and unblemished service, he was promoted to the post of Head Master on 08.09.2007. The petitioner ultimately attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 6 31.10.2013. After retirement, the petitioner became entitled to receive his retiral benefits including the amount standing to his credit in the General Provident Fund (GPF) account. It is submitted that the petitioner’s GPF records maintained by the office of the Accountant General clearly reflected a balance amount payable to the petitioner. However, instead of releasing the legitimate GPF amount, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 03.03.2014 alleging that there was a minus balance in the petitioner’s GPF account and sought recovery from him. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.1618 of 2014, wherein this Court, by order dated 28.03.2014, directed the authorities to place the matter before the Retiral Dues Committee (Pensionary Redressal Committee) for proper examination of the issue. ******* Learned counsel further submits that despite the aforesaid direction of this Court, the authorities failed to resolve the issue regarding the petitioner’s GPF account. Consequently, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.3579 of 2014, wherein the Court reiterated the earlier directions and granted liberty to the petitioner to submit the necessary documents before the Accountant General for reconsideration of his claim. It is further contended that in compliance with the directions of this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the office of the Accountant General on 08.08.2014 claiming the GPF amount along with interest. Thereafter, the Accountant General addressed letters dated 08.09.2014 and 19.11.2014 to the Block Education Officer, 7 Janjgir-Champa, calling for complete details of deductions and withdrawals in the petitioner’s GPF account so that the correct position could be determined. However, despite repeated communications, the concerned authorities failed to furnish the necessary details in time. ******* Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the records produced by the respondents themselves demonstrate serious inconsistencies and irregularities in the maintenance of the petitioner’s GPF account. It has been pointed out that the respondents have referred to two different accounts in the name of “Vinod Kumar Sahu” having different CED numbers, which has resulted in confusion in the records. Further, the documents on record also indicate that several deductions made during the period between 1972 to 1976 as well as certain withdrawals prior to the year 1981 have not been properly reflected in the account statements maintained by the respondents. It is argued that even the calculation sheets and correspondence placed on record by the respondents show contradictory figures regarding the alleged negative balance. While at one stage the respondents alleged a negative balance of Rs.5,99,744/-, subsequently the amount was revised to Rs.4,34,329/- and thereafter again recalculated by including penal interest. Learned counsel submits that such fluctuating figures clearly demonstrate that the respondents themselves are uncertain about the correctness of the GPF account and the alleged recoverable amount. It is therefore contended that the entire discrepancy has arisen due to improper maintenance of 8 records by the concerned authorities and the petitioner cannot be made liable for such administrative lapses. The petitioner has already retired from service after more than four decades of service and cannot be penalized for errors committed by the department in maintaining the GPF account. It is thus prayed that the respondents be directed to settle the petitioner’s GPF account properly and release the amount legally payable to him along with appropriate interest. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the present writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed inasmuch as no cause of action survives against the answering respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 30.10.2013 and thereafter, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the service records and documents relating to the petitioner’s retiral dues including the General Provident Fund (GPF) were forwarded to the office of the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur vide letter dated 30.12.2013 for final settlement of the GPF account. It is further submitted that the office of the Accountant General, which is the competent authority for maintenance and finalization of GPF accounts of government employees, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner indicating that there was a minus balance of Rs.9,26,570/- in his GPF account. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner approached this Court by filing an earlier writ petition wherein the Hon’ble Court referred the matter to the Retiral Dues Committee for consideration. Thereafter, 9 the petitioner again approached this Court and was granted liberty to submit the relevant documents before the Accountant General. ******* Learned State counsel would further submit that after the petitioner submitted his representation before the Accountant General on 08.08.2014, the office of the Accountant General issued letters dated 08.09.2014 and 19.11.2014 to the Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, calling for detailed information regarding deductions and withdrawals made from the petitioner’s GPF account. In compliance with the said communications, the Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, furnished the required details of deductions made in the petitioner’s account vide letter dated 01.12.2014. It is further submitted that thereafter, upon further directions and communications from the office of the Accountant General, the Block Education Officer again supplied additional details regarding withdrawals made by the petitioner from his GPF account on different dates. Such details were furnished vide letters dated 03.03.2015 and 24.03.2015 in response to the communications issued by the Accountant General. ******* Learned State counsel would emphasize that the accounts of the General Provident Fund are maintained exclusively by the office of the Accountant General and the role of the answering respondents is limited to forwarding the service records and providing the necessary information as and when required. The answering respondents have duly complied with the directions issued by the Accountant General and have supplied all the relevant 10 information and documents pertaining to deductions and withdrawals in the petitioner’s GPF account. It is therefore submitted that the answering respondents have performed their duties in accordance with law and no lapse or negligence can be attributed to them in the matter of settlement of the petitioner’s GPF account. Since the maintenance and final settlement of the GPF account falls within the domain of the Accountant General, no relief as sought by the petitioner can be granted against the answering respondents. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned State counsel submits that the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed insofar as the answering respondents No.1 to 3 are concerned. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the present writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit inasmuch as no amount is payable to the petitioner from his General Provident Fund (GPF) account. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was a subscriber of GPF Account No. CED/238172, has claimed payment of Rs.2,34,621/- solely on the basis of a provisional account slip issued by the office of the Accountant General. However, the said claim is contrary to the actual position of the petitioner’s GPF account after final verification and reconciliation of records. ******* Learned counsel submits that the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Chhattisgarh, Raipur is the authority responsible for maintaining and compiling the GPF accounts of State Government 11 employees. The accounts are maintained on the basis of schedules relating to deposits and debit vouchers relating to withdrawals received from the Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs) through the respective treasuries. Therefore, the entries in the GPF accounts are made strictly on the basis of records and documents submitted by the concerned departments through the treasury system. Any discrepancy in the schedules or vouchers initially submitted by the department may subsequently be corrected on the basis of authentic records furnished by the department. It is further submitted that upon receipt of the final GPF payment case of the petitioner from the office of the Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, the same was processed by the office of respondent No.4. During such scrutiny, it was found that as on the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e., 31.10.2013, a minus balance of Rs.9,26,570/- had accrued in the petitioner’s GPF account. Accordingly, the petitioner as well as the concerned department were informed about the said position vide communication dated 03.03.2014 along with a detailed calculation sheet showing month-wise and year-wise entries relating to opening balance, deposits, withdrawals, interest and closing balance for verification and clarification. ******* Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner disputed certain withdrawals reflected in his account, the matter remained under correspondence between the office of the Accountant General and the concerned department. Letters dated 08.09.2014 and 19.11.2014 were issued to the Block Education Officer, Pamgarh calling for clarification regarding the disputed withdrawals. 12 Thereafter, the departmental authorities produced the relevant records and upon scrutiny it was revealed that certain withdrawals had been wrongly mentioned in the part final list or had been mixed up with the account of another subscriber bearing a similar name, namely Sh. V. K. Sahu having GPF Account No. CED/303244. It is submitted that after verification of the departmental records and clarification received from the department vide letter dated 25.04.2015, the entire GPF account of the petitioner was recalculated from the beginning of his service by taking into consideration the actual withdrawals made by him. Upon such recalculation, it was found that the petitioner had overdrawn the GPF amount and a minus balance of Rs.5,14,409/- existed in his account as on the date of retirement. The revised calculation sheet and the position of the account were communicated to the petitioner and the department vide letter dated 02.06.2015. ******* Learned counsel further submits that the matter was also examined by the High Power Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of this Court in the earlier writ proceedings. The Committee considered the case in several meetings in the presence of the petitioner and the departmental officials. After due verification of the records, the Committee arrived at a negative balance of Rs.4,34,329/- as on the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e., 31.10.2013. The said position was communicated to the petitioner and the department vide letter dated 27.10.2015. Subsequently, the High Power Committee, by order dated 26.10.2015, directed that the petitioner should deposit the overdrawn amount of Rs.4,34,329/- 13 without penal interest, failing which penal interest would become chargeable. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s claim for payment of Rs.2,34,621/- is based solely on an annual GPF account slip. Such account slips are provisional in nature and are expressly subject to correction of missing credits, debits or arithmetical errors at the time of final settlement of the account. A specific note to this effect is printed on the reverse side of every account slip issued by the office of the Accountant General. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any amount merely on the basis of the provisional account slip when the final calculation of the account clearly shows that the petitioner has overdrawn the GPF amount. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that respondent No.4 has acted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and on the basis of records furnished by the concerned department. Since the final reconciliation of the petitioner’s GPF account reveals that no amount is payable to him and, on the contrary, an excess amount has been withdrawn by him, the petitioner is liable to refund the overdrawn amount along with applicable interest. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is wholly devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the rejoinder to the return filed by the respondents, would submit that the replies filed by the respondents, particularly respondent No.4– the Accountant General, do not rebut the core grievance raised by the petitioner and, in fact, the averments made therein clearly demonstrate serious lapses on the part of the respondent authorities in maintaining the 14 petitioner’s GPF account. It is submitted that the petitioner is a subscriber of GPF Account No. CED/238172 and has claimed payment of Rs.2,34,621/- on the basis of the account slip issued by the office of the Accountant General. The petitioner had rendered long and continuous service since his appointment in the year 1972 and throughout his service period regular deductions towards GPF were made from his salary. However, due to negligence on the part of the department, the records relating to GPF deductions for the period from the year 1972–73 to 1975–76 were not properly maintained. As a consequence, the schedules and vouchers pertaining to those deductions were not submitted by the department to the office of the Accountant General. The respondent department itself has admitted vide letter dated 01.12.2014 that the records for the said period are not available and therefore verification of the deductions for that period cannot be carried out. ******* Learned counsel submits that due to the absence of these records, the entire calculation of the petitioner’s GPF account has been wrongly reflected as a minus balance. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the administrative lapses and failure of the department in maintaining proper records of deductions made from his salary. It is further submitted that the petitioner had remained under suspension during two different periods, namely from December 1988 to May 1990 and again from 20.07.2012 to 31.10.2013. Subsequently, the said periods were treated as duty periods and therefore the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of GPF deductions for the said periods as well. However, the 15 deductions pertaining to those periods have not been correctly reflected in the records maintained by the respondents, which has further contributed to the erroneous calculation of the GPF account. ******* Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondents themselves have admitted in their reply that several withdrawals were wrongly mentioned in the part-final list or had been mixed up with the account of another employee bearing a similar name, namely V.K. Sahu having GPF Account No. CED/303244. Such an admission clearly establishes that the discrepancies in the petitioner’s GPF account have arisen solely due to mistakes committed by the respondent authorities while maintaining and reconciling the records. It is therefore submitted that the respondents cannot shift the burden of their own administrative errors upon the petitioner. The incorrect adjustment of withdrawals from the account of another employee and the absence of records for certain periods clearly indicate that the accounts have not been properly maintained. Due to such negligence and erroneous adjustments made by the department, the petitioner has been wrongly shown to have a minus balance in his GPF account. ******* Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has consistently maintained that he has not withdrawn the amounts which have been reflected as withdrawals in the records. Instead of properly verifying the deductions and reconciling the records, the respondents have arbitrarily made adjustments in the petitioner’s account without proper application of mind. In these circumstances, it is submitted 16 that the discrepancies in the petitioner’s GPF account have arisen due to lapses and irregularities committed by the respondent authorities themselves. The petitioner, who has already retired from service after rendering long years of service, cannot be compelled to suffer on account of the administrative negligence of the department. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the respondents be directed to settle the petitioner’s GPF account correctly and release the amount due to him along with appropriate interest. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. 9. The petitioner, who retired from service on 31.10.2013 from the post of Head Master, has approached this Court seeking payment of the amount standing to his credit in the General Provident Fund (GPF) account. According to the petitioner, as per the deduction slip issued by the office of the Accountant General, a sum of Rs.2,34,621/- was shown as the balance amount in his GPF account and the said amount has not been released to him even after his retirement. 10. From the pleadings and materials placed on record, it appears that after retirement of the petitioner the final payment case of the petitioner’s GPF account was forwarded by the Block Education Officer to the office of the Accountant General for settlement. During scrutiny of the records, the office of the Accountant General initially found a minus balance in the petitioner’s GPF account and accordingly issued a communication dated 03.03.2014 calling upon 17 the petitioner and the department to clarify the discrepancies appearing in the account. The petitioner challenged the said action before this Court in earlier proceedings and the matter was directed to be examined by the Retiral Dues Committee. Thereafter also the matter remained under correspondence between the office of the Accountant General and the departmental authorities for verification of deductions and withdrawals reflected in the petitioner’s GPF account. 11. It further appears from the record that the petitioner has disputed certain withdrawals shown in his GPF account and has also contended that the deductions made from his salary during the earlier years of service were not properly reflected in the account. On the other hand, the respondents have stated that the GPF accounts are maintained on the basis of schedules and vouchers received from the concerned department through the treasury and the entries in the account are made strictly on the basis of such records. It has also been stated that upon scrutiny of the departmental records, certain withdrawals were found to have been wrongly entered or mixed with the account of another employee having a similar name, which necessitated re-calculation of the account. 12. The material placed on record further indicates that different figures of negative balance have been worked out at different stages of correspondence, and the matter has also been examined by the High Power/Retiral Dues Committee. However, the pleadings and 18 documents reveal that there exist discrepancies in the records relating to deductions and withdrawals in the petitioner’s GPF account, including the issue of missing records of certain earlier years and confusion arising out of entries relating to another employee bearing a similar name. 13. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present matter essentially relates to reconciliation and verification of the petitioner’s GPF account on the basis of complete service records, deduction schedules, vouchers and other relevant documents maintained by the concerned authorities. Determination of the exact balance payable or recoverable requires detailed verification of the records by the competent authorities and is essentially an exercise falling within the domain of the departmental authorities and the Accountant General. 14. This Court is of the considered view that the dispute cannot be satisfactorily resolved merely on the basis of the pleadings placed before this Court and requires proper re-examination of the petitioner’s GPF account after taking into account all relevant records, including the service records, deduction schedules, withdrawal vouchers and any other supporting documents available with the department and the office of the Accountant General. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the nature of the dispute, this Court deems it appropriate to remit the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the case of the 19 petitioner shall be placed before the High Power Pension Redressal Committee, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur for re- verification and reconciliation of the petitioner’s GPF account. The Committee shall examine the entire records relating to the petitioner’s GPF account, including deduction schedules, withdrawal vouchers, passbook entries and departmental records, and shall undertake a fresh calculation of the account after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Committee shall also take into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner regarding missing deductions and alleged incorrect entries in the account. 16. After such verification, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order determining the correct position of the petitioner’s GPF account and take consequential steps for settlement of the account in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall preferably be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. The respondent/State authorities are directed to transmit the entire service record along with all relevant documents pertaining to the petitioner’s GPF account to the High Power Pension Redressal Committee, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, along with a copy of this order immediately. The said Committee shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the directions issued herein. 18. The Registry is further directed to forthwith supply a copy of this order to the learned State counsel for ensuring due compliance. 20 19. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved