22.09.2026 Sl. No.13 Ct. No.14 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 2960 of 2026 Usha Rani Sahoo Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Banshi Badan Maity …for the Petitioner. Mr. Sourav Sengupta Mr. Ashok Prasad …for the State. 1. Report filed by the State furnished by the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education, Purba Medinipur dated 21st September, 2026 is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities for refund of alleged overdrawn amount of salary of Rs.58,810/- together with interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner from the date following the date of retirement of the concerned employee till the date of actual disbursement. 3. The petitioner contends that her husband Late Natabar Sahoo was an Assistant Teacher of Serkhanchak 2 no. Primary School, P.O. Serkhanchak, District Purba Medinipur. The petitioner’s husband retired from service on superannuation on 31st October, 1994 and expired on 20th April, 2005. The Pension Payment Order was issued on 23rd August, 2001 after deducting the amount of Rs.58,810/- towards overdrawn in pay. 2 Such deduction is impermissible in law. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Banshi Badan Maity, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the deduction has been made after retirement of the concerned employee, 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 (Whitewasher etc.) reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Today 671. He seeks for appropriate direction for refund of the said amount. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Sourav Sengupta, learned Advocate representing the State submits that the concerned deceased teacher submitted a declaration on 2nd November, 1998 giving his willingness to deposit the overdrawn salary of 20 months. Thus, the petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee cannot claim for refund of the alleged overdrawn amount since that was deducted with the consent of the concerned employee and that too after lapse of almost 20 years. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. It is found from the materials on record that the Pension Payment Order was issued to the concerned employee on 23rd August, 2001 after his retirement on 31st October, 1994. The report of the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education, Purba Medinipur datd 21st September, 2026 shows that the concerned teacher submitted a declaration on 2nd November, 3 1998 giving his willingness for deduction of the overdrawn salary of 20 months. Upon such declaration the deduction has been made. The concerned employee during his lifetime did not challenge the deduction towards overdrawn amount. The petitioner being the widow of the concerned employee after a lapse 20 years of the death of employee has challenged the same by way of the writ petition. Considering such facts, the writ petition falls short of merit and is not sustainable. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 2960 of 2026 stands dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 9. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 12. 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.)