MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT OF NUTAN PRASAD TIWARI V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, May 26 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on April 24:

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 30.10.2024, filed as Annexure P/9, passed by respondent No.5 i.e. Account General of Madhya Pradesh, Motimahal, Gwalior (M.P.).

2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed on post of Constable on 10.06.1977. Thereafter, he was promoted on post of Head Constable on 31.01.1987. Second promotion was granted on post of ASI on 17.11.1991 and he was promoted as Sub Inspector on 02.07.2010. Petitioner got one more promotion to post of Inspector on 04.07.2015. Petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2017. At the time of retirement, order dated 01.03.2017 was issued and recovery of Rs. 8,86,047/- was ordered. Excess payment is said to have been made to petitioner between 1997 to 2017. It is submitted that petitioner has not made any misrepresentation. Respondents kept on sleeping and continuously made excess payment. Petitioner was not aware of the same. Whole amount cannot be recovered in lump sum without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Petitioner filed representation to Accountant General's office against recovery order. No order has been passed. Respondents cannot recover the amount from petitioner in view of judgment passed in case of State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883. It is submitted that there is no negative balance in GPF account of petitioner between 1996 to 2017. Petitioner has given explanation regarding negative balance in GPF Account but said representation was not considered and amount was recovered from retiral dues. Prayer is made that impugned order dated 30.10.2024 be quashed and amount be returned to him.

3. Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that final payment of GPF of petitioner was done as per Rule 32(3)(iii) of M.P. General Provident Fund Rules, 1955 after verifying departmental record with ledger maintained by them. After verification, it was observed that following withdrawals were made : (i) Rs. 30000/- in May, 2000; (ii) Rs. 60,000/- in May, 2001; (iii) Rs. 23,000/- in February, 2002; (iv) Rs. 1,81,000/- in April, 2015; (v) Rs. 30,000/- in April, 1997; (vi) Rs. 30,000/- in May, 1997.

4. There was minus balance of Rs. 8,86,047/-, which was intimated to petitioner and his department vide letter dated 01.03.2017. Petitioner has not challenged minus balance notice and computation sheet Annexure P/2. Department had verified and admitted by subsequent letters dated 26.09.2017 and 27.11.2017 that all withdrawals were not mentioned in GPF passbook of petitioner, but mentioned in ledger accounts of answering respondent. Petitioner is making an arbitrary prayer to quash recovery. It is submitted that as per Rule 37(2) of M.P. General Provident Fund Rules, 1955, every subscriber is also responsible for ensuring correctness and completeness of GPF account slips, but petitioner despite knowing the withdrawals remained silent and made more withdrawals than deposit.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2024/WP/39072/WP_39072_2024_FinalOrder_24-04-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.