1 2026:CGHC:23752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 400 of 2024 1 - Jogan Tandon W/o Late Shri B.D. Tandon Aged About 54 Years R/o Hig - 15, Minakshi Nagar, Borsi, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Govt. Of C.G. Through - The Secrtary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Member Secretary Pension Nirakarn Committee, General Administration Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District New Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Pradhan Mahalekhakar Lekha And Haqdari, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Principal Higher Secondary School, Devada, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate For State :- Mr. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order On Board 15.06.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction and illegal action of the respondents in not complying with the order dated 11-08-2021 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 1338/2020, whereby respondent No. 2 was directed to take a decision within 90 days regarding the amount of GPF payable to the petitioner, after affording opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that though representation was submitted by the petitioner in compliance of order dated 17-10-2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 8341/2023, respondent No. 2 has merely reiterated its earlier order dated 31-07-2023 without dealing with the specific grounds raised by the petitioner, thereby rendering the action arbitrary and non-speaking. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 That, this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned letter dated 09-11- 2023 annexure P-4 ordering recovery of Rs. 16,42,172.00 as shown in order para 12 of annexure P-7 from the petitioner & respondents may kindly be ordered to pay the petitioner balance amount shown in 2014-15 by the Principal in his letter dated 04-03-2016 annexure P-10 and deduction of GPF amount from the pay of Shri B.D. Tandon from 2014-15 till date of his death on 29-12- 2017 with penal interest @ 18%. 3 10.2 That, cost of litigation and any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly also be awarded.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary and exorbitant recovery order issued by respondent No. 2 pertaining to the GPF account of Late Shri B.D. Tandon, wherein an alleged negative balance of Rs. 16,42,172/- has been shown without proper computation or justification. It is submitted that earlier computation sheets reflected a much lesser amount, and despite deductions made during service and entitlement of interest on the GPF balance, the respondents have failed to properly reconcile the accounts. The petitioner has specifically contended that after retirement or death of an employee, recovery cannot be effected without following due procedure, including obtaining permission of the competent authority, and that such recovery beyond permissible period is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that despite specific objections raised by the petitioner regarding incorrect calculation, non-adjustment of dues, and illegal charging of interest upon interest, the respondents have failed to correct the accounts or provide a reasoned justification, thereby rendering the impugned action illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee namely Late B.D. Tandon, who was working as Lecturer and expired on 29.12.2017 while in 4 service. It is submitted that after his death, the petitioner, being his widow and legal heir, submitted applications for release of all service and retiral dues of the deceased employee. However, by order dated 31.07.2023, the respondent authorities have directed recovery on the basis of an alleged “negative balance” shown in the GPF account of the deceased employee, and the said recovery has been sought to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, approached this Court, whereupon this Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation within a stipulated period of three months. It is submitted that although the representation has been decided, the same has been rejected by reiterating the existence of a negative balance of Rs. 16,42,172/- in the GPF account of the deceased employee without proper justification or lawful basis. Learned counsel submits that in similar cases, including W.P.(S) No. 7834/2022 and other connected matters, this Court has held that where alleged recoveries are sought to be made after retirement or death of an employee and the so-called negative balance is communicated subsequently, such recovery is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that in the present case, the alleged negative balance has been raised and communicated only after the death of the employee, and therefore the recovery sought from the widow is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and the impugned order deserves to be 5 quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ram Baksh Dwivedi vs. State of M.P. and Others, W.P. No. 14080 of 2012, decided on 27.06.2024, as well as the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 2617/2013 (Dharmu Ram Mandavi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) decided on 02.09.2024, wherein it has been held that recovery based on alleged excess payment or negative balance, when initiated or communicated after retirement or death of the employee, is not legally sustainable. It is submitted that the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments, and therefore the impugned recovery is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that he is not in a position to dispute the factual aspect that the alleged negative balance in the GPF account of the deceased employee was communicated to the widow of the deceased only after his death. It is further fairly not disputed that in identical matters this Court has already set aside recovery proceedings/notice of negative balance on the ground that such recovery, when communicated after retirement or death of the employee, is not legally sustainable. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the State submits that the present matter may be considered in light of the earlier judgments passed by this Court in similar facts and circumstances. 6 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the admitted factual position is that the alleged negative balance in the GPF account of the deceased employee was communicated to the petitioner only after the death of the employee. This aspect is not disputed by the respondents. 8. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts and considering the settled legal position as laid down in the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ram Baksh Dwivedi vs. State of M.P. and Others, W.P. No. 14080 of 2012, decided on 27.06.2024, as well as the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 2617/2013 (Dharmu Ram Mandavi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) decided on 02.09.2024, wherein it has been held that recovery on the basis of alleged negative balance communicated after retirement or death of the employee is not sustainable in law, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned recovery notice cannot be sustained. Had the alleged negative balance been determined and communicated during the lifetime or service tenure of the employee, the matter may have required a different consideration; however, in the present case, since the alleged negative balance has been raised after the death of the employee, the same is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. 7 9. Accordingly, the impugned recovery notice/order is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. The petition is allowed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha