1 - Kalicharan Sharma S/o Late B. C. Keshan Sharma, Aged About 69 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 {W.P.(S) No.5175 of 2016} 2025:CGHC:13106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5175 of 2016 1 - Kalicharan Sharma S/o Late B. C. Keshan Sharma, Aged About 69 Years R/o Beladula, Wardd No. 24, Sharma Quarter, Near Dam, Raigarh, Police Station And Post Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Block Education Officer, Education Department, Raigarh, Near S. P. House, In Front Of Natwar School, Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahalekhar Lekha Avam Hakdari, Zero Point Baloda Bazar Road, Post Office Madhar Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Secretary, General Administrative Department, Member Secretary, Pension Committee, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 {W.P.(S) No.5175 of 2016} For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the matter of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (supra) in which the following question has been framed in paragraph 1 which is reproduced herein below:-
Arguments
: Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For State For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Ashwain Shukla, Advocate Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 18.03.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by respondent No.3/Mahalekhkar by which an amount of Rs.30,506/- showing a negative balance in the account is sought to be recovered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from his services on 31.07.2008. After a delay of five years of retirement, the respondents have issued a notice / letter dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P/1) and the department had not explained from which head and on which date the amount has been taken on loan by the petitioner. He further submits that Annexure P/1 cannot be sustained in light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dharmu Ram Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others1. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State however supports the impugned notice / letter holding it to be just and proper. 1 Writ Petition (S) No.2617 of 2013, decided on 02.09.2024 3 {W.P.(S) No.5175 of 2016} 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of
Decision
“The short question involved in the writ petition is, whether respondent No.3 is justified in directing recovery against the petitioner (retired Government servant) on 25-5-2010 after expiry of 6 months / 1 year from the date of his retirement in the light of Rule 14(7) of the Chhattisgarh General Provident Fund Rules, 1955 read with Rules 65 and 66 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976?” 6. The aforesaid question has been answered by this Court in paragraph 13 to 15 passed by this Court in the matter of Dharmu Ram Mandavi (supra) which states 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 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 4 {W.P.(S) No.5175 of 2016} 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 and unassessed, surety may be taken from the retiring Govt. servant and the amount of 5 {W.P.(S) No.5175 of 2016} 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 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." 6 {W.P.(S) No.5175 of 2016} 7. As such, in the present case the petitioner had already retired from his services on 31.07.2008 and the notice / letter was issued against the petitioner on 29.11.2013 with delay of about five years for depositing the negative balance amount of Rs.30,506/- to his provident fund account which is very much beyond the prescribed period i.e. six months which had already expired on 31.01.2009. As such the amount in question cannot be directed to be recovered vide order dated 29.11.2013 without following the prescribed procedure of approaching the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in making recovery of negative balance of Rs.30,506 is declared unlawful. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. 8. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. No order as to cost(s). ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge