Dismissed¶36

Awadhesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2025WPS/1950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; WPS No. 1950 of 2024; Awadhesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others; decided 09/04/2025 by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru; writ petition dismissed; retiral dues/pension deduction for outstanding cooperative bank loan; NPA declaration dated 26/03/2018; loan account No. 606022076614; DCCB Bilaspur (respondent Nos. 6 & 7); refund of Rs.1,18,689.97 refused; recovery upheld against retired employee; no statutes or precedent cases cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the petitioner availed the loan from the bank and the said loan amount was declared as NPA on 26/03/2018. ¶35

Awadhesh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the deduction/withholding of Rs.1,18,689.97/- from the retired petitioner's retiral dues towards his outstanding bank loan was without rhyme or reason, warranting quashment of the order dated 11/04/2023 and refund by respondent No.6. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the petitioner availed the loan from the bank and the said loan amount was declared as NPA on 26/03/2018.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Since an outstanding towards the loan amount existed, the respondents rightly deducted the amount of Rs.1,18,689.67/- from the petitioner's account.

¶35

Key takeaways

The deduction cannot be stated to be illegal and arbitrary, because a person who availed the loan ought to have repaid the same.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPS No. 1950 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge), decided 09/04/2025 — DISMISSED. Petitioner Awadhesh Singh, a Septuagenarian retired Society Manager (retired 31/12/2015), had obtained release of his retiral dues after approaching this Court thrice and after the Deputy Registrar/Joint Registrar ordered payment with 6% interest; yet respondent Nos. 6 & 7 (CEO and Collector-cum-Authorized Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur) withheld/deducted Rs.1,18,689.97/- towards his outstanding loan (account No. 606022076614, declared NPA on 26/03/2018). The petitioner sought quashment of order dated 11/04/2023 and refund of the amount. Per the bank's affidavit, the petitioner had executed an agreement and signed a demand promissory note accepting payment of the loan with 10½% (Ten and half percent) per annum on default. Holding that, an outstanding towards the loan existing, the respondents rightly deducted Rs.1,18,689.67/- and that this 'cannot be stated to be illegal and arbitrary because if a person availed the loan, he ought to have repay the same', the Court found the writ petition sans substratum and dismissed it, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

2025:CGHC:16738

AMARDEEP CHOUBEY

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.11 15:32:14 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

WPS No. 1950 of 2024

¶8

1 - Awadhesh Singh S/o Sukhpal Singh, Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Taraud, Police Station Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Scretary, Cooperative Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

4 - The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

6 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Head Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶17

7 - The Collector -Cum Authorized Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Head Office, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶20

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramakant Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. Nos.6 & 7

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

09/04/2025

¶25

By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 11/04/2023 and also seeking a direction towards the respondent No.6 to refund the amount of Rs.1,18,689.97/-.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the service on 31/12/2015 from the post of Society Manager and thereafter, running from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance with regard to retiral dues. Even he has approached this Court by filing writ petitions on three occasions. After the orders of this Court as also the authorities of the Cooperative Societies, though the retiral dues have been released in favour of the petitioner, however, an amount of Rs.1,18,689.97/- has been with held without any rhyme or reason. On account of impugned action on the part of the authorities, the petitioner, who is a Septuagenarian, is facing hefty financial difÏculties.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the admissible retiral dues have already been released in favour of the petitioner, however, an amount of Rs. 1,18,689.97/- has been deducted on account of outstanding in the loan amount of the petitioner. The impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court.

¶28

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents.

¶30

This Court vide order dated 08/05/2024, directed both the parties to file their respective afÏdavits and the bank was directed to clarify when the loan was obtained by the petitioner, whether the loan was declared Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and when it has been declared Non-Performing Assets (NPA) by the Bank, whether the interest has to be recovered even after the retirement or not and why the recovery proceedings were initiated against the employee even he was retired from the services and after lapse of 10 years when the Deputy Registrar and the Join Registrar have passed the order for payment of retiral dues with 6% interest and why the recovery of Rs. 1,18,689.67/- has been passed by them, as the afÏdavit filed by the respondent No. 6 & 7 is silent on the query put by this Court.

¶31

In compliance of order of this Court, the bank/respondent Nos.6 & 7 field their afÏdavits stating at para-4 as under:-

¶32

“It is most respectfully and humbly submitted that, the loan account No. 606022076614 of the petitioner was declared Non-performing assets on 26/3/2018 by the bank, that the petitioner retiral dues has already been paid in compliance of the order passed by the deputy Registrar and Join Registrar but amount of Rs 1,18,689 has been deducted because the petitioner has obtain loan from the bank, and he has also executed an

¶33

¶34

agreement with the bank and also singed demand promissory note in which it has been accepted by the petitioner that if he fails to return the loan amount he will pay the loan amount with 101/2% (Ten and half percent) per annum. Copies of relevant documents are annexed as ANNEXURE-D-5”

¶35

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the petitioner availed the loan from the bank and the said loan amount was declared as NPA on 26/03/2018. Since there is an outstanding towards the loan amount, the respondents have rightly deducted the amount of Rs.1,18,689.67/- from the account of the petitioner, the same cannot be stated to be illegal and arbitrary because if a person availed the loan, he ought to have repay the same.

¶36

In the result, the writ petition sans substratum , is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶37

SD/-

¶38

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶39

Gowri/ Amardeep

Awadhesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tosh Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal Das Ghritesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pokhraj Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Shailja Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh