29.09.2026 Sl. No.19 Ct. No.14 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 4422 of 2026 Shiba Prasad Barik Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Banshi Badan Maity …for the Petitioner. Ms. Tanusree Ghosh …for the State. 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner 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.1,51,346/- together with interest to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that he was an Assistant Teacher of Kenduana Primary School, P.O. Tapsia, District Jhargram. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31st October, 2025. On the verge of his retirement, the petitioner was asked by the concerned District Inspector of Schools to deposit an amount of Rs.1,51,346/- towards alleged overdrawn of salary so that the retiral and pensionary benefits can be sanctioned in his favour. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the alleged overdrawn amount of Rs.1,51,346/- on 21st August, 2025 through treasury challan. Upon deposit of the overdrawn amount, the pension payment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 28th November, 2025. Such direction issued by the concerned District Inspector of Schools 2 for depositing the alleged overdrawn amount is impermissible in law. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Banshi Badan Maity, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the alleged overdrawn amount was directed by the authority concerned to be deposited only on the verge of retirement of the petitioner and the amount was accordingly deposited. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & ors versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 he submits that such direction to deposit alleged overdrawn amount is impermissible in law. He seeks for refund of amount of Rs.1,51,346/- with interest. 5. Ms. Tanusree Ghosh, learned Advocate for the State submits that at the time of giving option for refixation of pay an undertaking was given by the petitioner that if there is any excess payment, the petitioner will be bound to deposit the same. She prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the only issue which falls for consideration is whether the respondent authority was justified in directing the petitioner to deposit the alleged overdrawn amount of salary or not. 7. 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 3 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.” 8. Indisputably, the petitioner retired from service on 31st October, 2025. Immediate just on the verge of retirement as per direction of the concerned District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner deposited the alleged overdrawn amount of salary on 21st August, 2025 through treasury challan, which is within two months from his retirement. Bearing in mind proposition laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), the direction to deposit the alleged overdrawn amount of salary of Rs.1,51,346/- is impermissible in law. 9. 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), Jhargram and the respondent no.3, the Treasury Officer, Jhargram are directed to refund the overdrawn amount of salary of Rs.1,51,346/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of 4 deposit of the aforesaid amount till the date of actual payment. Such payment shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 for necessary action. 11. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 4422 of 2026 stands disposed of. 12. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. 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.)