Court No. 10 Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri(1629) Appellate Side 23.07.2026 WPA 1206 of 2026 (JPD 35) (S. Banerjee) Paresh Chandra Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Debajit Kundu … for the petitioner Mr. Subhankar Dutta Ms. Somdutta Patra … for the State Affidavit of service filed in court today be kept with the record. The petitioner retired from service on January 31, 2026 as a Headmaster of a High School. The petitioner claims that on the verge of retirement the petitioner was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 3,82,441/- to the Treasury as a condition precedent for disbursement of his retiral dues. The respondent authority alleges that the aforesaid sum of money had been overdrawn by the petitioner during the tenure of his service. 2 The petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount on January 29, 2026 vide two treasury challans. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid overdrawn amount was credited to the account of the petitioner due to wrong pay fixation. It is not the case of the respondent authority that the petitioner was in any manner responsible for such wrong fixation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. –Vs.- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., reported at (2015) 4 SCC 334 held thus:

“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 employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. 3 (iii) Recovery from 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 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.” The said direction is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand and applying the ration of the said decision this Court holds that respondent authorities could not have directed refund of the overdrawn amount as a precondition for release of retirement benefits. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that a direction is to be passed upon the concerned respondent to release the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,82,441/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum. 4 This writ petition is disposed of by directing the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, being the 2nd respondent to the writ petition, as well as the Treasury Officer, Cooch Behar II, being the 4th respondent, to release the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,82,441/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum on such amount in favour of the petitioner from the date of refund of the said amount, i.e., with effect from January 29, 2026 till the date of such payment. The payment as directed by this order shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Court No. 10 Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri(1629) Appellate Side 23.07.2026 WPA 1206 of 2026 (JPD 35) (S. Banerjee) Paresh Chandra Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Debajit Kundu … for the petitioner Mr. Subhankar Dutta Ms. Somdutta Patra … for the State Affidavit of service filed in court today be kept with the record. The petitioner retired from service on January 31, 2026 as a Headmaster of a High School. The petitioner claims that on the verge of retirement the petitioner was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 3,82,441/- to the Treasury as a condition precedent for disbursement of his retiral dues. The respondent authority alleges that the aforesaid sum of money had been overdrawn by the petitioner during the tenure of his service. 2 The petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount on January 29, 2026 vide two treasury challans. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid overdrawn amount was credited to the account of the petitioner due to wrong pay fixation. It is not the case of the respondent authority that the petitioner was in any manner responsible for such wrong fixation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. –Vs.- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., reported at (2015) 4 SCC 334 held thus:

“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 employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. 3 (iii) Recovery from 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 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.” The said direction is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand and applying the ration of the said decision this Court holds that respondent authorities could not have directed refund of the overdrawn amount as a precondition for release of retirement benefits. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that a direction is to be passed upon the concerned respondent to release the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,82,441/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum. 4 This writ petition is disposed of by directing the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, being the 2nd respondent to the writ petition, as well as the Treasury Officer, Cooch Behar II, being the 4th respondent, to release the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,82,441/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum on such amount in favour of the petitioner from the date of refund of the said amount, i.e., with effect from January 29, 2026 till the date of such payment. The payment as directed by this order shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)