Pensionary grievances must be decided by the High Power Pension Redressal Committee after hearing all concerned parties.

The petitioner, a retired employee, sought release of his pensionary benefits and other retiral dues. He challenged the debit balance and proposed recovery reflected in his General Provident Fund (GPF) account.

Government Higher Secondary School, Housing Board Colony, initially informed him on 9 March 2024 that his GPF account reflected a negative balance of ₹8,41,511, which was subsequently revised to ₹20,48,707 by communication dated 12 March 2024.

The Accountant General had earlier informed the petitioner on 27 February 2024 that the amount was treated as penal interest under Rule 14(7) of the Chhattisgarh General Provident Fund Rules, 1955, and was liable to be recovered from him.

The petitioner contended that the recovery was contrary to the applicable GPF Rules and that his retiral dues had consequently been withheld.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner’s grievance could be considered by the High Power Pension Redressal Committee constituted by the State Government, on which representatives of the Accountant General were also members.

Whether the petitioner’s grievance regarding the debit balance, penal-interest recovery in his GPF account, and withholding of pensionary and other retiral benefits should be considered by the High Power Pension Redressal Committee.

Whether the Committee should determine the legality of the proposed recovery and the petitioner’s entitlement to pensionary and other retiral dues after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

The Court noted the applicability of Rule 14(7) of the Chhattisgarh General Provident Fund Rules, 1955, under which the Accountant General had treated the disputed amount as penal interest recoverable from the petitioner.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that an appropriate statutory or administrative grievance-redressal body may examine a retired employee’s dispute concerning pensionary and retiral benefits, provided that the grievance is decided in accordance with law, after affording the affected parties an opportunity of hearing, and through a reasoned order.

The Court considered the petitioner’s limited prayer for examination and release of his pensionary and other retiral dues, together with the respondents’ submission that the High Power Pension Redressal Committee was constituted specifically to address such grievances and included representatives of the Accountant General.

Since the dispute involved the correctness of the negative GPF balance, the alleged penal-interest liability, and the consequential withholding of retiral benefits, the Court considered it appropriate for the Committee to examine the matter in the first instance.

The Court therefore refrained from determining whether the recovery under Rule 14(7) was legally sustainable and instead prescribed a time-bound procedure requiring consideration of the petitioner’s grievance after hearing all concerned parties.

The petitioner was directed to submit a copy of the writ petition and all relevant documents to the Office of the Advocate General within one week.

The Office was directed to forward the materials to the High Power Pension Redressal Committee within a further period of 15 days.

The Committee was directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s grievance concerning pensionary benefits and other retiral dues, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and the petitioner, and to pass an appropriate reasoned order preferably within 60 days thereafter.