Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6479 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Bhagwani Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the sixth respondent.
The husband of the petitioner, a Collection Amin, came to be retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 13 January 2007. Retiral dues including 90% of the General Provident Fund (G.P.F.) was released. The papers for release of balance 10% G.P.F. was sent to the office of the third respondent- Accountant General, Allahabad. Upon verification of the documents, it transpires that the employee had taken loan of Rs.26,000/- from the G.P.F. Account in 1996, however, the said amount and the interest payable thereon came to be paid to the employee at the time of his retirement. Recovery is being sought to be made by the impugned order dated 14 January 2019 passed by the office of the Accountant General. An amount at Rs.2,75,793/- is said to be recovered from the petitioner. The order has been passed after verifying the facts from the fifth respondent-Chief Treasury Officer, Azamgarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that employee had expired in 2012, there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The amount should have been deducted at the time of releasing 90% of the G.P.F. amount. Reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334.
In rebuttal, Sri Chaturvedi submits that before disbursing the amount, the employee was brought to notice that if the payment made is in excess, it would be required to be refunded. Reliance has been placed on the decision rendered in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267.
Upon being confronted with the decision, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that such an endorsement was obtained while releasing the payment.
Having regard to the law laid down in Jagdev Singh (Supra), the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is provided that recovery of the amount shall be made in accordance with Regulations/Rules.
No cost.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Atul