Debjani Chaudhuri v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS
18.06.2026 Sl. No.16 Ct. No.6 ss
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 921 of 2026 Debjani Chaudhuri
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Taniya Bhowmik ...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arijit Ghosh, Ms. Esha Acharya ...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 for refund of alleged overdrawn of salary amount of Rs.3,38,658/- to the petitioner along with interest from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. 3.
The petitioner contends that she was an Assistant Teacher of Deshbandhu Nagar Girls' High School, District-Jalpaiguri. The petitioner superannuated on 31st March, 2025. After her retirement, the pension payment order was not issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to deposit the alleged overdrawn amount of Rs.3,38,658/- to the concerned Treasury office for sanctioning pension.
Accordingly, on 1st July, 2025 the petitioner deposited the alleged overdrawn amount of
Rs.3,38,658/- to the concerned Treasury office.
Upon deposit alleged overdrawn amount the Pension Payment Order was issued on 28th July, 2025 in favour of the petitioner. Such direction of the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) to refund alleged overdrawn amount after retirement, is impermissible in law. Hence, this writ petition.
4.
Ms. Taniya Bhowmik, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that such direction to refund the alleged overdrawn in pay is impermissible in law since it has been made after retirement of concerned employee. To buttress her contention she relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
5.
Mr. Arijit Ghosh, learned Advocate for the State submits that the petitioner has deposited the aforesaid alleged overdrawn amount without any demur and as such the petitioner cannot claim for refund of the same. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
6.
Upon hearing learned Advocates for the respective parties, the only issue which falls
for consideration is whether the direction of the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) for refund of the alleged overdrawn amount is sustainable or not.
7.
In order to examine the aforesaid issue, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant paragraph no.18 of the decision in Rafiq Masih (supra) as hereunder:
"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 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) Recovery from employees, or 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."
8.
It is found from annexure P1 at page 14 to the writ petition that the alleged overdrawn amount of Rs.3,38,658/- was deposited on 1st July, 2025. The alleged overdrawn of salary is for the period from 1st July, 2009
to 31st March, 2025, which is excess 5 years before the direction to refund was issued.
Bearing in mind the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the petitioner was directed to deposit the alleged overdrawn amount after her superannuation on 31st March, 2025 and the deposit has been made subsequently on 1st July, 2025 and the period overdrawn is excess of 5 years before the direction was issued, hence such direction to deposit the alleged overdrawn amount is impermissible in law.
9.
In view of the above, respondent No.2, Director of Pension and Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal and respondent No.3, Treasury Officer, Jalpaiguri-II, are directed to refund alleged overdrawn amount Rs.3,38,658/- to the petitioner together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of refund till the date of actual payment within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
10. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 921 of 2026 stands disposed of.
11. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the
respondent No.2, Director of Pension and Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal and respondent No.3, Treasury Officer, Jalpaiguri-II, for necessary compliance.
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.)