SITARAM VYAS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(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 General's 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 petitioner's 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.