Paras Das Guru vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Since common question of law and fact is involved in these writ petitions, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by

this common order.

Counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this batch of writ petitions is covered by the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this

Court in the matter of Bhagirathi Adile v. State of Chhattisgarh and others WPS No.4200/2012, decided on 18-5-2018 in which it has been held in

paragraph 10 as under: -

“10. In none of the cases in hand, the respondents have come out with a case that towards effecting recovery, any order has been passed by the

Governor, if at all it were permissible, under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. It is apparent that in certain scrutinies made, the authorities claimed to have

found that the petitioners in present cases, who are either retired employees receiving pension or nominees of the retired employees who died after

retirement receiving family pension, it was found that the Government employee, while in service, had withdrawn amount more than what he was

entitled to receive as Provident Fund amount at the time of his retirement from service. There are many cases where negative balance show lakhs of

rupees resulting in huge recovery proposed under impugned orders / notices. During the course of arguments, it was contended by learned counsel for

all the respondents that Provident Fund Account, GPF pass books were scrutinized and various entries made with regard to deposits, withdrawals etc.

were also looked into and then finally, when it was found that subscriber Provident Fund Accounts are showing negative balance, impugned notices

were issued. If that be so, looking to the fact that the petitioners are retired employees and that huge amount is proposed to be recovered against

them, it ought to proceed with an enquiry, though summary in nature, by affording opportunity of hearing. Though in all notices, the petitioners have

been asked to deposit the amount mentioned in the notices, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that these are only notices proposing

recoveries and if the retired employee / or the nominee who is receiving family pension has any defence on law or on facts, they can submit reply. But

instead of giving proper reply to satisfy the authority that negative balance showing are not correct, the petitioners have approached the Court.

In the considered opinion of this Court, all the petitioners are entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the notices / recovery orders are given effect

to. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to submit their individual responses / objections to the proposed recovery before the authority who issued

them notices.

The authority who issued recovery letter shall duly examine the reply, verify the records and subject to permissibility under the Rules may pass orders

in accordance with law. While taking decision in the matter of individual petitioner, legal position, as adumbrated herein above shall be kept in view to

decide the permissibility of recovery one way or the other. Each of the petitioners would be at liberty to file their respective response within a period

of 12 weeks from today. The authority must take a decision in the matter within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of response. A

copy of this order shall necessarily be placed before the authority along with response / objection / reply. The authority would be obliged to pass a

speaking order.â€​

Since parties are at agreement that the issue involved in this batch of writ petitions is covered by the decision rendered in Bhagirathi Adile (supra),

the impugned orders of recovery are hereby quashed and the matters are remitted to the competent authority to follow the principle of law laid down

in Bhagirathi Adile (supra) and decide the same afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).