29.09.2026 Sl. No.26(DL) Ct. No.14 srm IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 6105 of 2026 Nilima Patra Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. , Mr. Sourav Mitra, Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury. Ms. Jonaki Saha …for the Petitioner. Ms. Mary Dutta, Ms. Sneha Chatterjee …for the State. 1. Report filed by the State furnished by the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Purba Medinipur dated 25th September, 2026 is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to refund the alleged overdrawn amount of Rs.1,25,153/- deducted from the pensionary benefits of her husband together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement of petitioner’s husband till the date of actual disbursement. 3. The petitioner contends that her husband, late Subhas Chandra Patra was an approved Head Teacher of Jantari Buniadi Primary School, P.O. Marishda, District Purba Medinipur. The petitioner’s husband retired from service on superannuation on 30th June, 1992 and expired on 7th August, 2017. Pension Payment Order was issued on 8th December, 1999 deducting an amount of Rs.1,25,153/- towards alleged 2 overdrawal of salary. Such deduction towards overdrawal of salary is impermissible in law. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Sourav Mitra, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the deduction tolwards alleged overdrawn amount has been made after retirement of the concerned employee which is impermissible in law. Reliance is placed 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. He seeks for appropriate direction for refund of the alleged overdrawn amount of Rs.1,25,153/- together with interest. 5. On the contrary, Ms. Mary Dutta, learned Advocate for the State-respondents submits that there is no such documents annexed to the writ petition in support of the claim of the petitioner. Moreover, the writ petition has been filed after a considerable delay. She seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In reply, Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that delay per se cannot defeat the right of the petitioner. To buttress his contention, he relies on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Niladri Kumar Choudhury versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.[In Re: WP 24231(W) of 2017] 7. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, following issues which fall for consideration. Firstly, whether the writ petition is maintainable after a considerable delay; 3 Secondly, whether the respondent authorities were justified in deducting the alleged overdrawn amount after retirement of the concerned employee. 8. With regard to the first issue whether the maintainability of writ petition is effected by delay, it is trite law delay per se cannot defeat the right of the petitioner, if such delay does not affect the right of a third party [See: Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 648]. 9. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Ramendra Nath Mukherjee versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: MAT 933 of 2010) following the decisions passed in Shyambabu Verma & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors. reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521, Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. versus State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 648 observed that the petitioner approached the Court after lapse of nine years. However, on account of the aforesaid delay, no third party right has accrued and it is only the petitioner who suffered due to non-payment of the aforesaid amount by the respondent authorities. The Hon’ble Division Bench granted relief in spite of delay. In line with the aforesaid decisions, it is no more res intergra that delay per se cannot defeat the right of the petitioner. 10. With regard to the second issue as to whether the respondent authorities were justified in deducting the amount after the retirement of the petitioner. 4 11. In order to examine such issue it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih (supra) 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 payment. Be that as it may, based on the decisions 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 employees, 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.” 12. Since such deduction has been made after more than seven year of retirement of the concerned employee and bearing in mind the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), this Court is of the opinion that such deduction is impermissible in law. 13. Accordingly, the respondent No.2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal, the respondent No.4, the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Purba Medinipur 5 and the respondent No.3, the Treasury Officer, Contai, Pruba Medinipur are directed to refund the overdrawn amount of salary of Rs.1,25,153/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of issuance of the Pension Payment of Order till the date of actual payment. Such payment shall be made within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. 14. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, for necessary compliance. 15. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 6105 of 2026 stands disposed of. 16. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 18. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 21. 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.)