Saligram Rajoriya vs State of M.P. and Others

Heard. This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 24.4.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7757/2003.

The appellant filed an application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal against the order of recovery dt. 1.5.2002, by which the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,27,357/- on account of negative balance in his General Provident Fund account. The appellant retired from service.

The contention of the appellant was that his account had not been prepared properly by the concerned authorities, hence, negative balance was shown.

In the return filed by the respondents, it was pleaded that the GPF account of the appellant was verified and it was found that due to over withdrawal by the appellant, there was negative balance in the GPF account of the appellant.

Learned Writ Court in para 3 and 4 of the order has considered the factual aspects in detail and recorded a finding that there was negative balance in the GPF account of the appellant of Rs. 1,65,872/- up to June 2002. The Accountant General again renewed the GPF account of the appellant and thereafter it was found that an amount of Rs. 1,94,823/- was to be recovered from the appellant. Before the Writ Court detailed chart was filed by the respondents in respect of withdrawals and deposits from the GPF account. After considering all the facts, the Writ Court recorded a finding that the negative balance shown in the account of the appellant is in accordance with law.

Rule 14(7) of the M.P. General Provident Fund Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules of 1955'') prescribes that in case subscriber is found to have drawn from the fund an amount in excess of the amount standing to his credit, the over drawn amount shall be repaid by him with interest thereon and in default be ordered to be recovered.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, has held that if the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due to him, the recovery is justified. The relevant findings of the Hon''ble Supreme Court are as under:-

The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, considered the excess payment made to an employee and held that the recovery could not be made from the employee.

On the basis of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the expressed provisions of Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 1955, in our opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.