KUSUM SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a widow of an employee of the State Government, has approached this Court alleging that after the death of her husband, she was informed that there was a negative balance in the General Provident Fund (herein after referred to as 'G.P.F.') account of the husband of the petitioner and the said amount was to be recovered from the terminal dues to be paid to the petitioner. That being so, a recovery has been intimated to the petitioner vide the impugned order. It is contended that if there was any minus balance in the General Provident Fund of the husband of the petitioner, no further disbursement should have been made to the husband of the petitioner. On the other hand, the said amount should have been recovered from the salary of the husband of the petitioner. It is contended that in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 Supp1 SCC 18nothing has to be recovered from the petitioner and as such the respondents are liable to pay the amount of G.P.F. of the husband of the petitioner to her. The recovery made from the terminal dues be refunded to the petitioner. A return has been filed by the respondents contending that the husband of the petitioner, by name Ramnath Soni, was working as an Accountant. It was found that there was minus balance in the General Provident Fund of said person and accordingly information was sent that the said amount was to be recovered from the holder of the G.P.F. account. However, the departmental authorities have not taken any steps in that respect at the relevant time for simple reason that the husband of the petitioner himself was working as Accountant and he has manipulated the records. Ultimately, when the death of the husband of the petitioner was reported, after examining the records it was found that recovery was to be made including the penal interest and since the penal interest itself was about Rs. 4,918/- per month, therefore, recovery was to be made from whatever dues to be paid to the petitioner. Information in this respect was sent but since action was not taken, the claims of the petitioner have been withheld. In view of this, it is contended that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief as the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram is not only distinguishable, the same has been watered down in subsequent years.

(2.) A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner contending inter alia that dues are to be recovered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and in terms of the specific provisions made under the Rules aforesaid if any recovery whatsoever is to be made, the procedure laid-down under the Rules has to be followed. The amount of gratuity or pension is not attachable for such recovery unless an opportunity of hearing is granted to such a person. That being so, it is contended that the action on the part of respondents is per se illegal.

(3.) An additional reply has been filed by the respondents and in terms of order dated 19.3.2012 an additional affidavit of the Officer-in-Charge of the respondent No. 2 has been filed. The statement of the G.P.F. account of the husband of the petitioner has been placed on record. A circular of the State Government has also been placed on record indicating as to how recovery of the negative balance is to be made and under what provision, interest is required to be imposed. It is reiterated that because of these reasons and the provisions of the G.P.F. Rules, petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that she was informed by the Principal of the School that an amount of Rs. 5,71,003/- was to be recovered as negative balance in G.P.F. from the petitioner and in case such an amount is deposited, total claim of Rs. 4,94,981/- towards the death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment, employees group insurance scheme and arrears of dearness allowance would be paid to the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that because of the aforesaid reasons and improper action of respondent No. 2, such claims of the petitioner are withheld.