30.07.2025 Ct.No.7 sdas WPA No. 15426 of 2024 Krishna Bandyopadhyay Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sakti Pada Jana Mrs. Sudipa Pramanik .…for the petitioner Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay Ms. Lipika Chatterjee .…. for the State The petitioner, a retired Headmistress, has preferred the present writ petition, praying for an appropriate order and/or direction and/or a writ, particularly in the nature of mandamus, commanding the concerned respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 5,90,541/– along with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum, calculated from the date of its deposition through treasury challan until the date of actual repayment.

Furthermore, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith release her pension, to be computed on the basis of her last drawn basic pay amounting to Rs. 1,10,700/– per month.

Before addressing the issue raised in the present writ petition, it would be prudent to advert to the essential facts that led to its institution.

The petitioner commenced her career as an Assistant Teacher at Kenjakura Damodar Balika Vidyalaya, District – Bankura, on 21.09.1988. Thereafter, she was appointed as the Assistant Headmistress of the said institution on 12.11.2002. Subsequently, she assumed charge as the Headmistress of Dhulai Girls’ High School, District – Bankura, with effect from 01.10.2008. Upon completion of approximately 25 years of continuous and unblemished service, the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2022, having attained the age of superannuation.

Prior to her retirement, all requisite documents were duly forwarded to the competent authority for the purpose of processing and releasing the petitioner’s pension and other retiral benefits. However, the disbursement of her pension and terminal dues was withheld on the ground that she had allegedly drawn excess pay during her tenure of service. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,90,541/–, alleged to be the overdrawn amount, as a precondition for the release of her pension and other retirement benefits.

Confronted with such a situation, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to deposit the sum of Rs. 5,90,541/– through treasury challan. Thereafter, her basic pay was revised, and the competent authority ultimately concluded that, although the petitioner had been drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1,10,700/–, her actual entitled basic pay was Rs.1,04,400/–. Based on this revised figure, her pension was accordingly assessed and subsequently released in her favour. These developments have compelled the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ petition.

Mr. Jana, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, draws my attention to the petitioner’s pay-statement and submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Headmistress on 12.11.2002. At the relevant point of time, in accordance with the applicable Government Order, being G.O. No. 185-SE(B) dated 04.05.2000, an additional increment of Rs. 2,50/– was added to her basic pay. He submits that this benefit was duly extended to the petitioner under the provisions of ROPA 1998, pursuant to which her pay was revised. Taking into account all relevant factors, the concerned District Inspector of Schools subsequently fixed the petitioner’s basic pay and issued the Pay Certificate.

He further submits that, on 01.10.2008, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmistress and, as per the rules then prevailing, was granted an additional increment. Giving retrospective effect to the Circular dated 08.10.2009, he claims, the concerned respondents concluded that the petitioner had unlawfully enjoyed double benefits — Grade Pay due to her promotion as Assistant Headmistress, and an additional increment granted upon promotion to Headmistress. This erroneous conclusion led the respondents to wrongly determine that the petitioner had drawn excess payment, thereby compelling her to deposit a sum of money to