22.09.2026 Sl. No.46 Ct. No.14 gd IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA/15005/2026 Madhabi Sau (Dasgupta) VS The State of West Bengal and Ors. Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury …for the Petitioner. Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee Ms. Madhurima Basu …for the State. 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Report filed by the State furnished by District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Paschim Medinipur dated 18th August, 2026 is also taken on record. 3. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to refund the alleged overdrawn amount of Rs.1,11,398/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. 4. The petitioner contends that she was an Assistant Teacher of Depara Primary School, P.O.-Chandra, District-Paschim Medinipur. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31st July, 2024. On the verge of her retirement the petitioner was asked by the concerned District Inspector of Schools to refund the alleged overdrawn amount of Rs.1,11,398/- for sanctioning of the pensionary benefit in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the alleged overdrawn amount on 6th February, 2024 through treasury challan. Upon deposit of the alleged overdrawn amount Pension Payment Order has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 15th July, 2024. Such direction by the respondent authorities to deposit the alleged overdrawn amount just prior to retirement is impermissible in law. Hence this writ petition. 5. Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in State of Punjab And Others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 submits that the authority concerned ought not to have directed for refund of the alleged overdrawn amount on the verge of retirement of the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid submission, she prays for refund of the aforesaid amount together with interest. 6. On the contrary, Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee, learned advocate for the State submits that at the time of giving option the petitioner has given undertaking that in the event of excess payment she shall deposit the same to the Government. Therefore, the question of refund does not arise. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Upon hearing the learned advocates for respective parties, the only question which falls for consideration 2 in the present writ petition is whether the concerned District Inspector of Schools was justified in directing the petitioner to deposit the alleged overdrawn amount just on the verge of retirement. 8. In order to examine the aforesaid issue it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), the observed as follows:- "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 II and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) the retired Recovery from 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 (v) 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." 9. From the materials on record it is found that the petitioner deposited the alleged overdrawn amount on 6th February, 2024 and she has superannuated on 31st July, 2024 which is within one year of the order of recovery. Bearing in mind, the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), such direction is impermissible in law. 3 10. Accordingly, the respondent no.2, Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and the respondent no.3, Treasury Officer, Midnapore are directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,11,398/- to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposit till the actual payment within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent nos.2 and 3 for necessary compliance. 12. With the aforesaid, the writ petition being WPA 15005 of 2026 is disposed of. 13. Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. 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.) 4