1 2026:CGHC:445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6592 of 2018 1 - Girja Lal Sinha S/o Late Ramjatan Lal Aged About 70 Years Retired Government Employe As Accountant, R/o Singh Colony, Near Jodapipal, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Civil And Revenue District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department , Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Divisional Forest Officer North Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Divisional Forest Officer Balrampur Division, Balrampur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Account General Office In Front Of Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Account Officer Office Of Account And Treasury, Zero Point, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj K. Sinha, Adv For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv For respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 05/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge in this writ petition is to an order/letter dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by Account Officer, office of Account and Treasury/ respondent No.5 whereby an order of recovery of amount of Rs. 74,942/- was issued stating it to be an excess withdrawal from the GPF account 2 of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was employed as an Accountant in the Forest Department under the respondents and retired on 31.07.2009, upon attaining the age of superannuation. He submits that the impugned recovery order was passed after a lapse of about 10 years, which is legally impermissible. This position is supported by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dharmu Ram Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others passed in WPS No. 2617 of 2013 decided on 02.09.2024. The settled law dictates that the recovery of negative balance from the GPF account of the petitioner cannot be initiated beyond 6 months from the retirement of the petitioner. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the impugned order was passed after about 10 years, therefore, the order is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions and submit that a negative balance was shown in the account of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order was passed. The initial notices were issued in the year 2010 itself. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. A perusal of Annexure P-2 indicates that an amount of Rs.74,942/- was shown as a negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner. It appears that an advance was paid to the petitioner in the year 1980-81, which has been denied by the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the impugned order was passed after a considerable period of delay. The issue has previously come up before this Court in the case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (supra), placing reliance on the provisions of GPF Rules, 1955, and also a decision of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Ramnarayan Sharma v. State of M.P. and others passed in W.A. No. 357/2016, decided on 6-3- 2017. 5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (supra) observed in Paras 13 to 16 as under:- “13. A careful perusal of the above-quoted provisions would show that recoverable Government dues shall be adjusted within a period of six months from the date of retirement and if no claim is made within that period, it shall be presumed that no Government claim is outstanding against him excluding water charges and house rent, and the amount of water charges and house 3 rent shall be recovered within a period of one year from the date of retirement and thereafter, for such recovery, legal procedure has to be adopted. As such, Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 do not empower the State and its authorities to make any recovery of Government dues from pension/gratuity after expiry of six months/one year as per Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976. 14. As such, the provisions contained in Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 would show that they provide for recovery of Government dues and do not empower the State or its functionaries to make any adjustment of Government dues from pension/gratuity after expiry of 6 months as per sub- rule (3)(a) of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 and water charges & house rent after a period of one year as provided in the proviso to Rule 66(4) of the Pension Rules of 1976. 15.The M.P. High Court in Ramnarayan Sharma (supra) while considering Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976 held that after expiry of 6 months (for recoverable dues) or 12 months (for water charges & house rent) from the date of retirement, the only mode available for recovering ascertainable and unascertainable Government dues is by taking recourse to legal procedure which means filing the suit for recovery in the court of competent civil jurisdiction, and observed as under in paragraphs 8.9, 8.12 & 8.13: - “8.9 Rule 66 circumscribes the generic power under Rule 65. The said Rule provides that if any Govt. dues (other than those referred in Rule 65) remained unrealised an unassessed, surety may be taken from the retiring Govt. servant and the amount of pension and gratuity should be released without any delay. Rule further provides that in case of inability expressed by retired Govt. servant to furnish the surety, suitable cash deposit may be taken from him or a portion of gratuity which is sufficient to meet out the standing dues should be withheld. Rule further provides that where the dues are unascertainable then withholding of gratuity should be limited to 10%. 8.12 Scheme of Rule 66 can be bifurcated in two parts. The first part pertains to recovery of ascertainable dues and the second of unascertainable dues. In case of ascertainable dues the mode of taking cash deposit or surety or recovery from gratuity at the time of retirement is permissible. However, in case of unascertainable except dues relating to house rent and water charge, period of six months from the date of retirement is provided for the Govt. to assess and calculate the exact amount of dues. For adopting the same procedure 4 of adjustment against the cash deposit or partly withheld gratuity within the period of six months. Whereas in case of unascertainable dues pertaining to house rent and water charges long period of 12 months is prescribed for completing the process of assessment and calculation. 8.13 After the period of 6 months / 12 months from the date of retirement the only mode available for recovering ascertainable and unascertainable Govt. dues is by taking recourse to legal procedure which means filing the suit for recovery in the court of competent civil jurisdiction.” 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. ₹ Consequently, the order impugned dated 14-3-2013 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to pay the amount of GPF and all other retiral dues to the petitioner, if outstanding, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the respondents are at liberty to take the recourse of lawful mode to recover the amount, if any, as shown in Annexure P-1. 6. In the opinion of this Court the law laid down by this Court in WPS No. 2617 of 2013 applies to the case in hand, thus, the impugned order/letter Annexure P-1 & P-2 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. The petitioner is entitled to file a fresh petition for any other consequential benefit. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2026.01.07 15:42:23 +0530