The matter relates to Laxminarayan Tiwari, a resident of Pamgarh in Janjgir–Champa district. Tiwari served as a lecturer at the government higher secondary school in Sasaha and retired on January 31, 2011, upon attaining the age of 62.
Nearly 12 years after his retirement, the Office of the Accountant General, Raipur, issued a recovery order against him, citing a negative balance in his GPF account. Aggrieved by the decision, Tiwari approached the High Court by filing a writ petition through his counsel, advocates Abhishek Pandey and Rishabhdev Sahu, challenging the legality of the recovery.
Court’s observations
The High Court noted that established judicial precedents clearly prohibit recovery from a retired employee’s GPF account beyond six months from the date of retirement. The petitioner’s counsel relied on earlier rulings, including Ramnarayan Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh decided by the Jabalpur High Court, and D.R. Mandavi vs State of Chhattisgarh and Hridaynarayan Shukla vs State of Chhattisgarh decided by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
In these cases, the courts held that any dues recoverable from a government servant must be settled within six months of retirement. Recovery initiated after this period was held to be in violation of service and pension rules.
Provision under pension rules
The court also referred to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The rule stipulates that if a negative balance is found in a retired employee’s GPF account, recovery can be made only within six months from the date of superannuation. Any recovery after the stipulated period is legally impermissible.
Final order
Agreeing with the submissions and legal position, the High Court ruled that the recovery order issued 12 years after Tiwari’s retirement was unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed the recovery order issued by the Office of the Accountant General, Raipur.
The judgment reinforces legal safeguards for retired government employees and clarifies that delayed recovery from GPF accounts violates pension rules and established law.
.jpg)
