Hari Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2018 MP

                                                                   1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                               BEFORE
                                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                     ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                                  WRIT PETITION No. 7071 of 2015

                                 Between:-
                                 HARI SINGH S/O SHRI RAM SINGH , AGED ABOUT
                                 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER FROM THE
                                 OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR VETERINARY
                                 SERVICE JABALPUR H.NO.2477 INDRA BASTI
                                 MADAN MAHAL WARD JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                 (NONE FOR THE PETITIONER)

                                 AND

                      1.         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
                                 DEPARTMENT    OF VETERINARY SERVICES
                                 VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.         DEPUTY DIRECTOR       VETERNARY SERVICE
                                 DIVISION, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.         ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF M.P. ACCOUNTANT
                                 GENERAL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                 (BY SHRI AMIT MISHRA, PL FOR STATE )
                                                   (Heard through Video Conferencing)
                              T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                                    ORDER

None for the petitioner.

Shri Amit Mishra, learned PL for the respondent/State.

This petition is filed claiming issuance of writ to quash impugned recovery order directing recovery from GPF with further direction to respondents to finalize the GPF of the petitioner as per GPF slip and as per GPF pass book along with interest.

Shri Amit Mishra submits that respondent no.3 has filed copy of calculation sheets as contained in Annexure R-3/3 showing over drawl of GPF amounts by the petitioner. As a result, it was found that petitioner had negative balance of Rs.2,22,652/-. It was found that all withdrawal have been certified

Signature Not by the Department vide Annexure R-3/2 as were made by the petitioner on 09/08/2001, 23/05/2002, SAN Verified 07/02/2004 and 02/09/2005. It is also mentioned that the Department as well as petitioner were Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR provided complete calculation sheets but instead of examining the same and pointing inconsistency in it, SALUNKE Date: 2022.02.14 18:58:14 IST

which presumably he did not find, the petitioner preferred this litigation possibly to avoid recovery on one or other ground.

It is submitted that calculation sheets reveal that there is deposit of Rs.439571/- against which there is withdrawal of Rs.653380/- during entire service of the petitioner. This is a reason for minus balance in the GPF account of the petitioner. The Ledger Account maintained by the answering respondents is

only authentic document in terms of M.P FD Order dated 15/12/1966 and Rules 32 & 37 of M.P GPF Rules, 1955.

Reliance is placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Accountant General (A &E) Vs. R.K Sharma & others decided by Gwalior Bench of this High Court in W.P No. 701/2000 on 23/11/2004, wherein Hon'ble Division Bench has held that even after issuance of no dues certificates and payment of retirement dues, if excess amount is found to be paid, it can always be recovered and this order of recovery was not at all a service matter. Further in case of Ramesh Kumar Gugnani Vs. The Accountant General (A/E)-I & others (WP No.2553/2007(S), a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02/04/2009 has held that if any amount is overdrawn by the petitioner from his GPF Account and then keeping in view the provisions of Sub Rule 7 Rule 14 of the MP General Provident Fund Rules, the respondents have rightly levied interest @ 2.5% over and above the normal rate of Provident Fund Interest. The aforesaid statutory provisions have not been challenged before this Court and therefore, the action of the respondents in imposing the additional rate of interest is justified in the light of the statutory provisions stated above, no case of interference is made out in the matter. Similar issue was before the Indore Bench in W.P No. 3862/2013 (Sadhashiv Rao Khatre Vs. State of M.P & others), where a coordinate Bench of this Court again dealt with law laid down in the case of R.K Sharma and held that if there was a negative balance in the GPF account of the petitioner, the respondents shall certainly be free to recover the amount in question from the petitioner. No case for interference is made out in the matter. The petition was dismissed.

In case of Murrarilal Yadav Vs. State of M.P & others (W.P No. 1867/2007) decided on 19/11/2014, a coordinate Bench of this Court again held that if petitioner has over drawn an amount during his service then he is liable to refund the same along with interest being a public money.

In view of aforesaid judgements and judgment of Division Bench, there is no material on record to substantiate that petitioner has not over drawn amount from the GPF account and also taking into consideration circular of State Government and Rules of M.P G.PF, 1955, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief and decision of the authority to recovery the excess amount paid to the petitioner cannot be faulted with. Therefore petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

tarun