(1) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.

(2) INITIALLY when the matter was taken up on 29th June 2007, directions for affidavits were given. The matter was thereafter adjourned till 17th July, 2007. Subsequently, 2nd August, 2007, on the prayer of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, time to file affidavit-in-opposition was extended by a week. Today, the matter appears.

for Orders. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State authorities submits that they have not used any affidavit-in-opposition. I am, therefore constrained to take up this matter and decide on the basis of the pleadings in the writ petition, which stand uncontroverted.

(3) THE writ petitioner was appointed as an approved clerk of a High School in the district of Birbhum and was serving there since 7th October, 1969. He retired from service on 31st January, 2007. He, thus, appears to have been in service for around 37 years.

(4) BEFORE his retirement, he requested the respondent authorities to finalise his pension papers, so that he could get his retiral dues immediately after his retirement. It appears from paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the school authority forwarded the pension papers to the pension sanctioning authority. It further appears that on 21st February, 2007, three weeks after he had retired, the Headmaster handed over to the writ petitioner an objection raised by the deputy Director of Accounts, Birbhum regarding the settlement of pension of the writ petitioner. A copy of the said document, being a Verification Report of pay and provident fund of the writ petitioner, issued by the Deputy Director, directorate of Accounts, Government of West Bengal, School Education department, Birbhum, is annexed at page 31 of the writ petition. It appears that the Deputy Director, Birbhum, issued this Verification Report on 5th february, 2007, which was after the writ petitioner retired from service on 31st january, 2007. The school, thereafter, wrote to the writ petitioner on 9th March, 2007 with regard to the said Verification Report and requested the writ petitioner to give a reply and also reminded the writ petitioner to give his opinion against the overdrawn amount for the period indicated in the verification Report.

(5) IT appears from the Verification Report of the Deputy Director, Birbhum dated 5th February, 2007, that from 7th October, 1969 till 1st April, 2006, adjustments are shown to have been made upon reflxation of pay of the writ petitioner. There is an observation in the Verification Report which runs as follows: "as the employee H. S. (old) failed, the pay is to be refixed as follows:. . . . . . . . . "

(6) IT thus appears from the said Verification Report that the Deputy Director, directorate of Accounts, School Education Department, Birbhum, has refixed the pay of the writ petitioner on and from 7th October, 1969 till 1st April, 2006, on 5th February, 2007, i. e. , after the writ petitioner retired from service on 31st january, 2007.

(7) ACCORDING to the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, his client was given his usual pay, right from the date of his joining. i. e. 7th October, 1969 till the date of his retirement, i. e. 31st January, 2007. without any adjustment or reflxation in the intervening period of around 37 years. He submits that no demand whatsoever was ever raised or any notice given by the respondent authorities during his clients entire service career of over thirty-seven years, with regard to refund of any excess amount of pay.

(8) ACCORDING to the learned Advocate for the petitioner the Honble Supreme court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in 1994 (2) SCC 521, has considered it just and proper to direct the concerned authority not to recover any excess amount from the writ petitioners which had already been paid to them by way of their getting a higher scale of pay, since it was due to no