19.08.2026 Sl. No.35 Ct. No.14 NB IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 1193 of 2026 Md. Khurshid Alam Farooqui Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Mr. Himadri Barua, Mr. Biswajit Das. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Asit Kumar De. …for the State. 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Affidavit against the Report furnished by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata dated 27th July, 2026 is also taken on record. 3. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities for release of pension and other retiral benefits in his favour. 4. The petitioner contends that he joined as an Assistant Teacher (Language group) in Beniapukur High Madrasah, (hereinafter referred to as „said Madrasah‟) on 20th May, 1999 as untrained teacher. The petitioner, at the time of joining had the qualification of M.M.B.A. (Hons) in Arabic. The petitioner during his service period completed his Masters in Arabic in the year 2001 from Calcutta University and was granted post graduate scale of pay with effect from 5th February, 2002 i.e. the last date of examination. The petitioner completed his B. Ed qualification in the year 2012. 2 The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31st December, 2025. However, the pension and other retiral benefits have not yet been released in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the B.Ed. qualification obtained by the petitioner in the year 2012 needs to be reviewed. On 23rd December, 2025, the petitioner made a representation before the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata for taking necessary steps for calculating the retiral benefits in accordance with law. Since the pension and other retiral benefits have not been granted, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Himadri Barua, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the pension and other retiral benefits have been withheld by the respondent authorities on the ground that the petitioner has not completed B.Ed. within five years from his date of appointment. Referring to the letter no.759- SE(S)/2P-1/09 dated 30th July, 2009, he submits that the Governor after careful examination of all facts and circumstances was pleased to allow the incumbents in drawing increments upto the year 2012 as usual and during that period they must complete such training approved by NCTE. This is one time relaxation which was granted upto the year 2012. The petitioner completed his B.Ed. training qualification in the year 2012. Therefore, the pension and the retiral benefits of the petitioner withheld by the respondent authorities on the ground of reviewing the B.Ed. qualification of the petitioner is arbitrary and not in consonance with the notification of the School Education Department dated 30th July, 2009. He seeks for an appropriate direction upon the respondent authorities for 3 grant of pension and other retiral benefits forthwith in favour of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, learned advocate for the State respondents, on the contrary, submits that since the petitioner did not complete his B.Ed. qualification within the first 5 years of his service from the date of his appointment objection has been raised with regard to annual increment granted to the petitioner from 2006 to 2009. The petitioner needs to refund the overdrawn amount in order to get the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits. 7. In reply, Mr. Barua, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that just on the verge of retirement, such order of alleged overdrawn has been issued by the concerned District Inspector of Schools which is impermissible in law. To buttress his contention, he relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State of Punjab & ors. versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 8. Upon hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, following issues fall for consideration. Firstly, whether withholding of pension by the Pension Sanctioning Authority is sustainable or not. Secondly, whether the respondent authorities particularly respondent no.4, District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata was justified in directing for depositing the alleged overdrawn amount of salary. 9. With regard to the first issue pertaining to sustainability of withholding of pension, indisputably the petitioner while in service completed his B.Ed. qualification in the year 2012. As per the State-respondents, the pension is withheld since 4 the petitioner did not complete his B.Ed. qualification within 5 years of his appointment. 10. At this juncture, it will be profitable to reproduce the relevant notification issued by the School Education Department, Secondary Branch being No.759-SE(S)/2P- 1/09 dated 30th July, 2009 as hereunder:- “Government of West Bengal School Education Department Secondary Branch Bikash Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata-91 No. 759-SE(S)/2P-1/09 Dated: Kolkata. The 30th July 2009 From : Shri S. Mahapatra O.S.D & ex-officio Jt. Secy to the Govt. of West Bengal. To : The Director of School Education, West Bengal Sub : Grant of benefit of increment to the untrained Assistant Teachers not undergone completed B.Ed Training yet. In reference to his memo no.2443-G.A/OM-20/2006 (pt) dated 24.12.2008 on the above noted subject, the undersigned is directed to say as per existing rules/provisions 4(four) they have to complete the B-Ed course approved by NCTE. As during the period of Court Cases continued for the last 3 years, the incumbents‟ concerned were unable to even get themselves admitted to the B-Ed Course in the colleges approved by NCTE, the Governor after careful examination of all the facts & circumstances of the cases has been pleased to allow the incumbents in drawing increments upto the year 2012 as usual and during that period they must have to complete such training approved by NCTE . This is only one time relaxation which is being granted upto the year 2012 and will not be extended beyond that on any ground. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide U.O.No. 1368, Group-P(Pay) dated 07.07.2009. Sd/- S. Mahapatra O.S.D & ex-officio Jt. Secy.” 11. Upon bare perusal of the aforesaid notification, it is palpably clear that the Governor after careful examination of all facts and circumstances has been pleased to allow the incumbents in drawing increments upto the year 2012 as usual and during that period they must have to complete the training approved by NCTE. Therefore, it goes without saying that the petitioner is entitled to draw increments since he has completed such B.Ed. qualification in the year 2012. 5 12. With regard to the second issue relating tenability of direction for deposit of alleged overdrawn amount of salary, it is found that the petitioner has categorically contended that respondent no.4. District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata, has informed the petitioner on the verge of his retirement that unless the overdrawn amount is deposited, pension cannot be released. Such contention of the petitioner has not been disputed by the State-respondents. 13. In order to examine the aforesaid issue, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraph no.18 from Rafiq Masih (supra) as hereunder: “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 employees, 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 3 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.” 14. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 31st December, 2025. Bearing in mind the proposition of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), the direction for depositing alleged overdrawn amount on the verge of retirement of the employee is impermissible. 6 15. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata, respondent no.4 is directed to verify the pension papers of the petitioner and forward the same to respondent no.3, Director of Pension Provident Fund and Group Insurance for sanctioning of pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner. 16. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 17. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to respondent no.3, Director of Pension Provident Fund and Group Insurance and respondent no.4, District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata, for necessary compliance. 18. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 1193 of 2026 stands disposed of. 19. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)