28.08.2026 Item No.05 Ct. No.652 PG WPA 11976 of 2025 Suchhanda Hazra Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ekramul Bari Mr. Sk. Imtiajuddin ….for the petitioner 1. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent-State. Affidavit of service is taken on record. Hence the matter is taken up in absence of the respondent/State. 2. The matter relates to challenge by the petitioner to the order dated 23rd December, 2024 by the school, which inter alia is that (1) increment of the petitioner stops from 1st July, 1993 due to her being untrained and will start again from 25th August,1993 i.e. after completion of her B.Ed. (2) her pay should be recast in Part-D From- SL 8 onwards and (3) salary overdrawal to be calculated and deposited; 3. Hence, such order of alleged overdrawal of pay by the petitioner and recast of her pay scale is challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. Bari has represented the petitioner. Mr. Bari has submitted that after joining in the school on and from 1st July, 1988, the petitioner had entered into the B.Ed. course and successfully 2 completed the theoretical classes on 15th May,1993. 5. It is further submitted that thereafter, there has been a delay in holding the B.Ed. practical examination and ultimately, such examination was concluded on 24th August, 1993. 6. Mr. Bari submits that the petitioner had no role to play in holding the practical examination of B.Ed. course at a belated date. Instead, he submits that the petitioner duly and successfully completed the theoretical classes within the time limit and also similarly, the practical examinations, when it was held. 7. He submits that therefore, consideration by the respondent authority, the petitioner to have obtained requisite training qualification, beyond the prescribed period of time, is erroneous and unsustainable. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner, whose scheduled date of retirement has been on 31st January, 2025, has been directed for recast of her pay scale and alleged overdrawal of salary, only at the verge of her retirement i.e. on 23rd December, 2024. 9. With reference to a judgment of this Court in Smt. Kalpita Moitra (Chakdalar) vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. dated 14.11.2024 in FMA 777 of 2023 and that of the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported at (2015) 4 SCC 334, it has been submitted that overdrawal, if any, at no fault or negligence of the employee, cannot be sought for, at the time of his/her retirement. 10. For the reasons, as afore stated, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 23rd December,2024 and payment of pension and other retiral benefits to her as per the last drawn pay of the petitioner. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the documents on records, the Court is of considered opinion that the practical examinations in B.Ed. course of the petitioner has admittedly ended beyond a period of 05 years from the date of her joining. However, there has been an inordinate delay in holding the practical examinations, which may not be attributable in any way to the petitioner herself. Fact remains that the substantive part of the course including the theoretical classes ended on 15th May, 1993. 12. The Court further notices that considering the above, since thereafter the petitioner has been granted benefits including regular increments 4 fir the reason that she has completed B.Ed. course within 5 years from the date of joining. Therefore, at the verge of her retirement, the petitioner cannot be subjected to recast of pay scale on the allegation of any overdrawal. 13. The situation could have been otherwise, had not the petitioner successfully completed the practical examinations. The petitioner having successfully completed the practical examinations, which is only an extension of the substantive part of the course, should be considered as having completed the B.Ed. course within the prescribed period of time. 14. The Court is further required to note the ratio of the decisions referred to on behalf of the petitioner in Rafiq Masih (supra) as well Smt. Smt. Kalpita Moitra (Chakladar) (supra). The Court noted that for payment of any excess amount during service period of an employee, which is not attributable to any misrepresentation or fraud committed by the employee himself, cannot be considered as overdrawal by the employee, particularly at the verge of his retirement. The following paragraph in Rafiq Masih (supra) may be quoted for benefit of discussion. “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would 5 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." 15. Apparently, there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of the present petitioner by the respondent authority while passing the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 as against her. 16. Therefore, on the entire discussions, as above, this Court finds the said impugned order to be unreasonable and arbitrary. Also that the same stands in contra with what has been held by the 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments, as referred to above. 17. That renders the said order as unsustainable. Hence, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondent school authority as well as the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Howrah and the respondent, Directorate of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, to take appropriate steps for issuance of pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner, in terms of her last drawn salary, by issuing pension payment order and disbursement of pension to her. 18. The exercise must be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. 19. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)