29.07.2026. Item no. 39. Court No. 652 sp W.P.A. No. 20782 of 2025 Ambika Charan Pan Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sourav Mitra, Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury ..for the petitioner. Ms. Mary Datta, Mr. Lokesh Chatterjee ..for the State. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. The writ petitioner served as an Assistant Teacher in a School and retired on 31.12.2024. As pre- condition for disbursal of the retiral benefits, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs.4,33,916/- by way of Treasury Challan on the ground of alleged overdrawal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. The issue whether overdrawal of pay can be adjusted against retirement dues of an employee has been settled in the case of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 and also in a later decision in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and also in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Paragraph 18 of “State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih” (supra) is also required to be set out: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” 2 It is clear from the above that a Writ of Mandamus is prayed for is maintainable in the facts of the present case. Also that any recovery, even if erroneously advanced to the employee earlier, cannot be made from him at the verge of his retirement or after that. The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal, concerned District Inspector of Schools and also the concerned Treasury Officer are accordingly directed to release the amount of Rs. 4,33,916/- to the petitioner along with interest @8% per annum with effect from the date of issuance of the pension payment order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the petitioner upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) 3