JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner's husband was an Assistant Teacher. He died in harness on 7.9.08. On his death, the petitioner claimed family pension and other retiral benefits. The concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Medinipur has now informed her that since the fixation of pay of her husband as on 11.01.86 was not in order, an audit objection has been raised by the Joint Director of Accounts. This order is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. None appears for the respondents despite service. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be retained with the records. 3. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in this writ petition, this Court considers it unnecessary to invite affidavits while keeping the writ petition pending. The respondents, in the opinion of this Court, cannot by filing an affidavit raise issues which cannot be effectively countered by the petitioner now. 4. The audit objection does not say that fixation of pay of the petitioner was erroneously made because of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part. 5. In the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2009(1) Supreme 163 , (Syed Abdul Kader & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), it has been held that if excess amount was not paid on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee but was paid because the employer applied a wrong principle for calculating pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which subsequently is found to be erroneous, in such case recovery cannot be effected. 6. Since fixation of pay of the petitioner's husband was made as far back as in January, 1986 and the same was noticed not to be in order only after his death, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the petitioner's husband had any special role to play in the matter of such fixation or as to whether any fraud or misrepresentation had been practised by him. 7. In view of such facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the objection that has now been raised more than two decades later is untenable since the person concerned being the petitioner's husband is no more and that any explanation that he might have offered would not be available now. 8. 7. In view of such facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the objection that has now been raised more than two decades later is untenable since the person concerned being the petitioner's husband is no more and that any explanation that he might have offered would not be available now. 8. The concerned District Inspector of Schools is directed to proceed overlooking the audit objection and to take effective steps for settling the petitioner's claim in accordance with law as early as possible but positively within twelve weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order for costs. 10. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties within four days from date of putting in requisites therefor. Dipankar Datta, J.: Writ petition disposed of.