G.D. AGRAWAL Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY the petition was filed challenging the validity of the recovery started against the petitioner by the respondents vide order dated 30 th April, 2009 wherein it was directed that a recovery of Rs.2,535/ per month was to be done from the pension of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.53,225/ , said to be paid in excess as provident fund amount, to the petitioner at the time of retirement. It was contended by the petitioner that such an order could not have been issued in the manner it was and a representation against such an action was filed which was pending consideration. A return was filed by the respondents contending that the petitioner had withdrawn an amount from the provident fund which was not credited in his account, on account of which, since the said amount was treated to be included in the provident fund account, payment of interest on the said amount was made and ultimately it had reached to such a huge amount of Rs.53,225/ , which was in fact paid in excess to the petitioner. Therefore, the same was required to be recovered.

(2.) THIS Court has entertained the writ petition and has granted an interim stay. During course of the hearing, this Court has directed to recalculate the amount, which the petitioner was paid in excess, vide order dated 25.7.2013 and a statement to this effect was filed by the respondents indicating that in all Rs.42,387/ was paid in excess to the petitioner. Only this much amount was required to be recovered from the petitioner. This statement is verified by the petitioner and it is stated that such a statement is correct.

(3.) PER contra, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief in view of the fact that the money of the Bank is also the public money and it is not to be wasted in the manner it would be had it not been recovered from the petitioner on account of wrong payment of provident fund. It is thus contended that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to deposit back the amount and since he has enjoyed the stay of recovery on account of passing of an interim order in the present petition, the entire amount is required to be deposited by the petitioner in lump sum.