Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sufia Begam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 August, 2025
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
137
ss
07.08.2025
WPA 22418 of 2024
Sufia Begam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Tapas Kumar Das
… … for the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is kept with
the record.
The husband of the petitioner was an Assistant
Teacher in a school and retired on 28.02.1992. The
petitioner is aggrieved by reason of deduction in the basic
pay of her husband by pension payment order issued by
the concerned authority on 09.03.2000. The amount
deducted is Rs.1,38,536/- under the category of
“overdrawal in pay etc”.
The issue whether overdrawal of pay can be
adjusted against retirement dues of an employee has
been settled in the case of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521
and also in a later decision in the case of Syed Abdul
Qadir & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2009)
3 SCC 475 and also in the case of State of Punjab &
Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in
(2015) 4 SCC 334. A judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of
this court in the case of Shiba Rani Maity Vs. The State
2
of West Bengal in W.P. 29979(W) of 2016 as well as
Biswanath Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal in W.P.
27562(W) of 2016 has categorically held that in a case
where no rights have accrued in favour of third party, the
petitioner who has suffered by reason of non-payment of
amount withheld on the ground of an alleged overdrawal
has a right to approach this court for appropriate relief.
The relevant paragraphs from W.P. 29979 of 2016 are
set out below:-
“(15) The only other question is that whether
the writ petition should be entertained in spite of
delay of about 17 years in approaching this Court.
In a judgment and order dated 6 September, 2010
delivered in MAT 1933 of 2010 passed by a Division
Bench of this Court and held that although the
petitioner had approached the Court after a lapse
of nine years, no third party right had accrued
because of the delay and it was only the petitioner
who suffered due to non-payment of the withheld
amount on account of alleged over-drawal.
Accordingly the Division Bench set aside the order
of the Learned Single Judge by which the writ
petition had been dismissed only on the ground of
delay.
(16) Following the Division Bench judgment
of this Court adverted to above, I hold that it is only
the petitioner who suffered by reason of the
wrongful withholding of the aforesaid sum from his
retiral benefits. Although there has been a delay of
about17 years in approaching this Court, the same
has not given rise to any third party right and
allowing this writ application is not going to affect
the right of any third party. It may also be noted
that the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in its
3
decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem
Singh, (2008) 3 SCC 648 that relief may be
granted to a writ petitioner in spit of the delay if it
does not affect the right of third parties”.
Paragraph 18 of “State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq
Masih” (supra) is also required to be set out”.
“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 employees, 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
employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary
to such an extent, as would far outweigh the
4equitable balance of the employer’s right to
recover”.
It is clear from the above that a Writ of Mandamus
is prayer for is maintainable in the facts of the present
case.
The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group
Insurance, Government of West Bengal as also the
concerned Treasury Officer are accordingly directed to
release the amount of Rs.1,38,536/- to the petitioner
along with interest @ 8 % per annum with effect from the
date of issuance of the pension payment order which
should be made to the petitioner within a period of eight
weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of, however, no order
as to costs.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)