M/L 218 13.07.2026 Court No.24 SD IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 27580 of 2025 Dibyendu Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das Mr. Gourav Das Mrs. Madhumanti Das … for the Petitioner. Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP Mr. Aniruddha Bagchi … for the State. 1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner in Court today be kept with the records. 2. The petitioner is a retired Headmaster. He allegedly received two extra increments for imparting higher secondary education from 2009 onwards. The pay of the petitioner was fixed accordingly. 3. The petitioner retired from service on 31st July, 2025. Just prior to his retirement, the respondents raised objection with regard to his pay fixation. By a communication dated 14th May, 2025 by the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Contai Sub-Division the petitioner was directed to refund the amount overdrawn by him on account of two increments which he drew while joining as Headmaster. 4. The petitioner objected to the request for refund of the amount which was found to be withdrawn by him in excess. 2 5. It has been submitted that the said amount could not have been directed to be refunded on account of excess payment immediately prior to the retirement of the teacher. The petitioner was enjoying the alleged excess payment since 2009 onwards till the date of his retirement. 6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein the Court laid down that recovery from retired employees and recovery from employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery is impermissible. 7. The Court also laid down that recovery from the employees, where the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued is impermissible. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has been directed to refund the amount immediately prior to his retirement. The same could not have been done. 9. After retirement on 31st July, 2025, the petitioner has not been paid his terminal dues till date. 10. The instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purba Medinipur to take steps to disburse the terminal dues of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law without 3 insisting upon refund of any payment allegedly paid to the petitioner on account of wrong pay fixation. 11. The authority shall disburse the payment of the petitioner at the earliest but positively within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. As the petitioner will be receiving his legal dues after considerable delay, his dues shall be paid along with interest @ 5% p.a. on and from the due date till the date of actual payment. 12. It is, however, made clear that it will be open for the authority to fix up the proper scale of pay of the petitioner and make necessary payment thereof. This order is only restricted with regard to the issue of refund of the alleged overdrawn amount which, as per the law laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra), is impermissible. The petitioner shall be paid his dues in accordance with law. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)