Bhagwat Prasad Panda V. State of Chhattisgarh and Accountant General, Chhattisgarh and District Education Officer, Raigarh and Block Education Officer, Lailunga and Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Bilaspur

WPS/548/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Bhagwat Prasad Panda, a retired Assistant Teacher, who challenged the legality of an order demanding repayment of 1,83,131/- from his GPF account, issued 16 years post-retirement. The petitioner had previously sought judicial intervention for the scrutiny of his GPF account, leading to a court directive for the release of credited amounts. The main legal contention revolved around the timing and legality of the recovery of government dues from a retired government servant's account. The court referenced a prior decision (Dharmu Ram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh) which established that such recoveries must be made within a specific timeframe post-retirement, failing which they are not legally enforceable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840678 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dharmu Ram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others
• Laws Referred To: Chhattisgarh General Provident Fund Rules, 1955, Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT BUXY; ASHWANI SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMKANT VERMA
• Keywords: Negative Balance; Recovery of dues; Superannuation; Writ petition; GPF account
• Section: 65; 66; 14(7)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 6 (WPS No.548/2020) 2026:CGHC:8731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 548 of 2020 Bhagwat Prasad Panda, S/o Late, Trilochan Panda, aged about 78 years, R/o Village Lailunga, P.S. & Tahsil Lailunda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Accountant General, Near Vidhan Shabha Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. Block Education Officer, Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 3 to 5: Mr. Amit Buxy, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 18/02/2026 1. The petitioner has called in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 27-3-2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Office of Printed from counselvise.com SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.02.19 10:42:26 +0530 Page 2 of 6 (WPS No.548/2020) the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh – respondent No.2, by which he has been asked to pay ₹ 1,83,131/-. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 3. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Assistant Teacher, on 31-12-2003 and thereafter, he filed writ petition for scrutinizing his GPF account in which on 28-1-2019, this Court directed the respondents to scrutinize the GPF account and to release the credited amount at the earliest. Thereafter, on 27-3-2019, the impugned order was passed by the Office of the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, showing negative balance of ₹ 1,83,131/- in the petitioner’s GPF account and accordingly, the petitioner’s representation has also been rejected. 4. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner retired from service on 31-12-2003 and the impugned order of the Accountant General was passed on 27-3-2019 which cannot be done in light of the decision of this Court in WPS No.2617/2013 (Dharmu Ram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), decided on 2-9-2024. 5. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 and 3 to 5, would oppose the writ petition and submit that the petitioner has filed affidavit duly notarized giving an undertaking to repay any excess payment made Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 6 (WPS No.548/2020) to him from his GPF account, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The petitioner stood retired from service on 31-12-2003 from the post of Assistant Teacher. He filed writ petition claiming certain GPF amount in which this Court on 28-1-2019 directed the respondents to scrutinize his GPF account and for releasing the credited amount at the earliest and only on 27-3-2019, after 16 years of his retirement, the order impugned was passed by respondent No.2 intimating negative balance of ₹ 1,83,131/- in his GPF account to the Block Education Officer, Lailunga. 8. In this regard, in Dharmu Ram Mandavi (supra), following question was posed by this Court in paragraph 1 of the order: - “1. 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 light of Rule 14(7) of the Chhattisgarh General Provident Fund Rules, 1955 read with Rules 65 & 66 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976?” 9. The aforesaid question was answered by this Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 of its order which state as under: - 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions contained in Rules 65 & 66 of the Pension Rules of 1976, which state as under: - “65. Recovery and adjustment of Government Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 6 (WPS No.548/2020) dues.-(1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are ascertainable:- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him, or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted. Explanation.- The expression ‘ascertainable Government dues’ includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income-tax deductable at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961). 66. Furnishing of surety by retiring Government servant.- (1) (a) If any of the Government dues (other than those referred to in Rule 65) remain unrealised and unassessed for any reasons, the retiring Government servant may be asked to furnish in Form 8 a surety of a suitable permanent Government servant, holding a pensionable post. (b) If the surety furnished by him is found acceptable, the grant of his pension and gratuity shall not be delayed. (2) (a) If the retiring Government servant is unable or unwilling to furnish a surety, a suitable cash deposit may be taken from him, or such portion of gratuity payable to him, as may be considered sufficient may be held over till the outstanding dues are assessed and adjusted. (b) The cash deposit to be taken or the amount of gratuity to be withheld shall not exceed the estimated amount of the outstanding dues plus twenty-five per cent thereof. Printed from counselvise.com Page 5 of 6 (WPS No.548/2020) (c) Where it is not possible to estimate the approximate amount recoverable from the retiring Government servant the amount of deposit to be taken or the portion of gratuity to be withheld shall be limited to ten per cent of the amount of gratuity or one thousand rupees, whichever is less. (3) (a) Efforts shall be made to assess and adjust the recoverable Government dues within a period not exceeding 6 months from the date of retirement of the Government servant and, if no claim is made on Government account against the Government servant within such a period, it shall be presumed that no Government claim excluding claim of house rent and water charges is outstanding against him. (b) The Government dues as assessed shall be adjusted against the cash deposit or the amount withheld from the gratuity and the balance, if any, shall be released to the retired Government servant after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a). (c) Where a pensioner has furnished a surety, the surety shall be released after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a), provided that dues assessed up to that time have been recovered. (4) The Government dues which remain unrealised within the period referred to in clause (a) of sub-rule (3) and such other dues, the claim for which is received after that period, shall be recoverable from the retired Government servant through legal procedure : Provided that in respect of house rent and water charges, the amount, if any, the claim for which is received after the period of 12 months from the date of retirement of the Government servant shall not be recoverable from the retired Government servant.” 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 such, Rules 65 & 66 of Printed from counselvise.com Page 6 of 6 (WPS No.548/2020) 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.” 10. As such, recovery after 16 years cannot be done and in light of the aforesaid decision of this Court in Dharmu Ram Mandavi (supra), recovery beyond the prescribed period is impermissible in law. 11. Mr. Buxy, learned State counsel, submits that affidavit has been given by the petitioner undertaking to repay any excess payment made to him in his GPF account. Recovery after lapse of 16 years of the petitioner’s retirement cannot be made except by taking recourse to legal procedure. Even otherwise, no recovery can be made in terms of such an affidavit, as the affidavit will not entitle the State to recover the aforesaid amount. Accordingly, the impugned order Annexure P-1 is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma Printed from counselvise.com "