Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1245 (MP)

SITARAM VYAS v. STATE OF M. P.

2007-12-04

ABHAY M.NAIK

body2007
Judgment Abhay M.Naik, J. ( 1. ) This petition is before the court on account of transfer of original application submitted before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. ( 2. ) Case of the petitioner/applicant is that he retired as Teacher from School Education Department of Government of M.P. on 31.8.1993 on account of attaining the age of superannuation at 60 years of age. He had Provident Fund Account bearing no. E.D.N. M.P. 15688. After his retirement, the petitioner submitted an application in prescribed proforma for releasing the amount of G.P.F. Respondent no. 2, Accountant Generals Office vide its letter dated 4.3.1994 informed respondent no. 4 (Block Development Officer) Seoni Malwa that an overpayment to the tune of Rs.15878/- was made to the petitioner which may be recovered from him. Petitioner was not simultaneously informed. However, he obtained a copy of the aforesaid letter on 18.12.1994 when he visited the Office of respondent no. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent no. 2 did not regularly send the details of Provident Funds Account. In the account slip of 1992-93, a sum of Rs.33,576/- was shown to be payable to the petitioner towards G.P.F. Petitioner had not obtained any loan from G.P.F. account and no loan could have been shown as due against the petitioner. It is, thus, stated in the petition that balance money to the tune of Rs.l5878/-was not due from the petitioner towards any kind of loan. However, it forms part of money deposited as GPF. Thus, it has been prayed that the petitioner is entitled to the G.P.F. amount along with interest. ( 3. ) Respondents/State has adopted the return of respondent no. 2 which is on record. Apart from the plea of limitation, it has been contended that at the time of processing for final payment of G.P.F. amount it was found that excess withdrawals were made by the petitioner. Accordingly, there was a minus balance of Rs.15,878/- in petitioners G.P.F. account which included interest upto August, 1993 which was and is recoverable from the petitioner. Accounts Officer, Hoshangabad was requested to make the recovery. Accordingly, it is contended that this petition has no substance and the same deserves to be dismissed. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not obtained any loan from the employer and is not liable to make refund. Accounts Officer, Hoshangabad was requested to make the recovery. Accordingly, it is contended that this petition has no substance and the same deserves to be dismissed. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not obtained any loan from the employer and is not liable to make refund. Instead, he is entitled to GPF money lying in his G.P.F. account. In the alternative, it is contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay interest on the amount allegedly withdrawn by him in excess. ( 5. ) Shri Om Namdeo, learned Government Advocate contended that the petitioner having made excess withdrawals from his G.P.F. account is liable to repay the same along with interest. ( 6. ) Considered the contention in the light of the record and provisions of M.P. General Provident Fund Rules. ( 7. ) It may be seen from Annexure A/1 that the petitioner had earlier instituted civil suit no. 50-A/96 for declaration that he was entitled to a sum of Rs.15878/- with interest from his G.P.F. account on account of his superannuation on 31.8.93. This issue was decided on merits against the petitioner with a clear finding that he is not entitled to recover Rs.15878/-towards provident fund from the State Government. Although the suit was held to be not maintainable in view of the provisions of Administrative-Tribunal Act yet it is equally true that the issue on merits was decided against the petitioner as is apparent from Annexures A/1 and A/2 which are the copies of judgment and decree regarding dismissal of the plaintiffs suit on merits as well as for want of jurisdiction. Since the suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, finding on merit cannot be harnessed into operation. However, in view of the dismissal of the suit it was quite obligatory on the part of petitioner to place on record the complete facts and proof regarding his entitlement to recover Rs. 15878/- from his provident fund account. It is quite clear from the petition that the petitioner has nowhere in specific averred that he had not overdrawn from his G.P.F. account. Respondent has placed on record the statement of G.P.F. account of the petitioner as Annexures R/l and R/2. Petitioner has failed to refute or controvert the statement of account by way of rejoinder. It is quite clear from the petition that the petitioner has nowhere in specific averred that he had not overdrawn from his G.P.F. account. Respondent has placed on record the statement of G.P.F. account of the petitioner as Annexures R/l and R/2. Petitioner has failed to refute or controvert the statement of account by way of rejoinder. Thus, the details of the G.P.F. contained in Annexures R/l and R/2 will be deemed to be not disputed by the petitioner and it would be deemed to be further admitted to the petitioner that he has made overdrawals from his G.P.F. account. ( 8. ) Sub rule 7 of Rule 14 of the M.P. General Provident Fund Rules reads as under.- "(7). In case a subscriber is found to have drawn from the fund an amount in excess of the amount standing to his credit on the date of the drawal, the overdrawn amount, irrespective of whether the overdrawal occurred in the course of an advance or a withdrawal or the final payment from the fund, shall be repaid by him with interest thereon, in one lump sum, or in default, be ordered to be recovered, by deduction in one lump sum, from the emoluments of the subscriber. If the total amount to be recovered is more than half of the subscribers emoluments, recoveries shall be made in monthly instalments of moieties of his emoluments till the entire amount together with interest, is recovered. For this rule, the rate of interest to be charged on overdrawn amount would be 2 1/2% over and above the normal rate of Provident Fund balances under sub-rule (1). The interest realised on the overdrawn amount shall be credited to the Government account under the distinct subhead "Interest on overdrawn from Provident Fund". From the aforesaid, it is ample clear that the amount of overdrawals would attract interest and the respondents have not committed any illegality in charging interest on the excess amount withdrawn by the petitioner from his G.P.F. Account. ( 9. ) As regards interest it may be seen that the State Government is liable to pay to the credit of the account of a subscriber interest at such rate as may be determined for each year. ( 9. ) As regards interest it may be seen that the State Government is liable to pay to the credit of the account of a subscriber interest at such rate as may be determined for each year. Thus, there is a statutory provision which obliges the State Government to pay interest to the subscriber of the G.P.F. If the Government is made liable to pay the interest, there is no reason why the subscriber would not pay interest on the amount of overdrawals. There cannot be one-way traffic in the matter of interest. If the Government employee i. e. subscriber of G.P.F. may compel the State Government to pay interest on the G.P.F. amount, he would be equally responsible to pay the same at the prescribed rate after making overdrawals. This being so, the alternative prayer for exoneration from interest is also not liable to be accepted. ( 10. ) Resultantly, the writ petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. No older as to costs. Petition dismissed.