Senior Accounts Officer and Others vs Ramniwas Pathak

Heard. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dt. 7.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4290/2007 (S).

The respondent employee was working as Assistant Teacher. He retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. A communication was sent to him on 31.12.2005 and he was informed that there was an outstanding amount of GPF of the respondent of Rs. 59,856/-. A copy of the communication has been filed by the respondent employee as Annexure P/3 alongwith the writ petition. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the respondent that on 31.7.2005 negative balance of Rs. 45,001/- was due against the respondent employee and he was directed to deposit the balance amount. The respondent employee challenged the aforesaid notice before the writ court. He pleaded that notice issued by the authority is arbitrary and illegal. No amount was due against him in regard to GPF. He further pleaded that contrary to this, there was plus balance in his GPF account which was communicated to him vide Annexure P/3. He further submitted that he was directed vide show cause notice (Annexure P/1) to show cause that an amount of Rs. 600/- and Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn by him on 4/74 and 12/99 and the amount was not paid by him, hence, there was a minus balance in the GPF account of the respondent employee.

The present appellants in their reply to the petition before the Writ Court pleaded that after retirement, the GPF account of the respondent employee was sent to the Accountant General and after verification it was found that there was a negative balance of Rs. 45,001/- against the respondent employee upto his retirement. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent employee to deposit the aforesaid amount with 2.5% interest. It is further pleaded by the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) in the reply that a clerical mistake had happened in the year 1984-85 because in the aforesaid years the closing balance against the GPF account of the petitioner (respondent herein) had been shown as Rs. 24,676/-, however, it was Rs. 14,676/-. It resulted an excess credit of Rs. 10,000/- in the year 1984-85. This error was not rectified, hence, the balance continued to inflate, due to the aforesaid error, positive balance has been shown in the account of the respondent employee, however, there was a negative balance in the GPF account of the respondent at the time of his retirement.

The respondent employee filed a rejoinder to the return and he pleaded that GPF slip of the year 1984-85 had never been issued to him nor he was served with any notice in regard to excess credit of Rs. 10,000/- in his account and he came to know this fact for the first time when the return was filed.

Learned Single Judge allowed the petition after relying on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, on the ground that the respondent employee deposited the amount of Rs. 600/- which was withdrawn by him in April 74 and also deposited Rs. 9,000/- which was said to be withdrawn by him in December 1999, hence, recovery could not be made against the respondent. There is no discussion by the learned Single Judge in regard to extra credit of Rs. 10,000/-, which was recorded in the account of the respondent employee of the year 1984-85 by the clerk.

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.

As per Rule 14(7) of the Rules of 1955, if a subscriber has withdrawn excess amount against the amount outstanding to his credit, over drawn amount could be recovered from him. In the present case, due to clerical mistake, extra amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been shown in the GPF account of the respondent employee in the year 1984-85 and in the subsequent years due to addition of interest it was inflated. It is also a fact that the respondent was not served with any show cause notice nor the respondent had knowledge about the aforesaid credit. Contrary to this, the department was negligent in the case. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the respondent employee is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- only. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed. It is held that the respondent employee has to deposit Rs. 10,000/- and he shall deposit the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly.

No order as to costs.