Recovery from GPF dues was upheld after excess withdrawals created a negative balance.

The petitioner, a retired Head Master, challenged the Pension Dispute Redressal Committee’s decision rejecting his claim for refund of ₹1,22,784 deducted from his GPF account.

The Committee found that he had withdrawn ₹91,500 beyond the available GPF balance; after adding interest, it deducted ₹1,22,784 and released the remaining ₹13,174.

The petitioner relied on an earlier order quashing recovery notices in WPS No. 2968 of 2017.

The respondents submitted that the present GPF issue had not been decided in that case and had instead been referred to the Committee in WPS No. 6461 of 2018 at the petitioner’s request.

1. Whether the Committee could examine and decide the petitioner’s GPF recovery dispute following its referral in WPS No. 6461 of 2018

2. Whether the Committee’s decision to recover ₹1,22,784 from the petitioner’s GPF account was unlawful or otherwise warranted interference

The Court’s decision applied the case-specific principle that, where a pension-related dispute has been referred to the designated Committee at the petitioner’s own request, the Committee may examine and decide that dispute; an earlier order quashing show-cause notices for recovery of excess salary, allowances, or increments does not determine a distinct dispute concerning a negative balance in a GPF account.

The Court also treated the Committee’s findings, reached after hearing the parties and examining the GPF account and passbook, as sufficient absent demonstrated illegality or infirmity.

The Court distinguished the earlier WPS No. 2968 of 2017, which concerned notices seeking recovery of excess salary-related payments, from the present dispute about excess withdrawal from the petitioner’s GPF account.

Because the petitioner himself had sought referral of the GPF issue to the Committee in WPS No. 6461 of 2018, the Committee was entitled to consider and decide it.

The Committee examined the account and passbook, found an excess withdrawal of ₹91,500 resulting in a negative balance, and calculated the recoverable sum, including interest, as ₹1,22,784.

The Court found no illegality or infirmity in that determination.

The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue his other claims before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.