JUDGMENT PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge disposed of the writ petition finally upon holding that the appellant/writ petitioner herein was not entitled to house rent allowance during the period she was provided with rent free accommodation by the college authority. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent Nos. 14 and 15. Inspite of granting repeated opportunities; none appears on behalf of the State-respondents. Furthermore, no written notes of arguments were also filed on behalf of the said State-respondents although specific liberty was granted by this court to that effect. 3. From the writ petition it appears that the appellant/writ petitioner joined the Balurghat Mahila Mahavidyalaya as a Lecturer on 29th October, 1971. The said appellant/writ petitioner also officiated as the Teacher-in-charge of the said college on and from 1st January, 1997 till her retirement on attaining the age of super-annuation on 31st January, 2003. 4. The real dispute cropped up when Treasury Officer, Balurghat Treasury No. 1 in the written communication dated 7th February, 2003 informed the Principal that the appellant/writ petitioner herein was not entitled to claim house rent allowance since she was provided with free accommodation in the hostel campus of the college. The said Treasury officer also requested the Principal to refer the case of the appellant to the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal for taking necessary action for recovery of the house rent allowance allegedly overdrawn by the said appellant/writ petitioner during the period she was provided free accommodation in the hostel campus of the college. 5. The matter was thereafter considered by the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal who clarified the matter by issuing several written communications in this regard. The Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal in a written communication issued to the President, Governing Body, Balurghat Mahila Mahavidyalaya under Memo dated 14th May, 2004 made certain observations in respect of the appellant/writ petitioner with regard to the nature of accommodation provided by the college authority. The relevant observations of the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal mentioned in the aforesaid Memo dated 14th May, 2004 in respect of the appellant/writ petitioner herein are set out hereunder: “It also appears from the records that Dr. The relevant observations of the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal mentioned in the aforesaid Memo dated 14th May, 2004 in respect of the appellant/writ petitioner herein are set out hereunder: “It also appears from the records that Dr. Mira Sinha, ex-Teacher-in-charge of the college, volunteered on the request of the Principal to look after some girl students, who, somehow, found their accommodation in a building constructed by the Backward Welfare Deptt. and she was not provided with separate Quarters as in the case of Hostel Superintendents. Besides, Dr. Mira Sinha, had her own accommodation in her paternal house during the period of her service in Balurghat Mahila Mahavidyalaya……………………I find, it is very much on record that you being the President of the Governing Body, issued No Liability Certificate in respect of Dr. Mira Sinha and, on the basis of which, the retiral benefits have been sanctioned in terms of this Directorate’s office Memo No. 2222/C/Pen dtd. Calcutta, the 12.8.2003…………………” 6. The said Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal in the subsequent Memo dated 24th December, 2004 specifically enumerated the following points in respect of the appellant/writ petitioner: “1) It is on record that the pension papers of Dr. Mira Sinha were sent earlier along with No Liability Certificate from the end of the President of the Governing Body and, relying upon which, the Pension Section of this Directorate sanctioned the pension in respect of Dr. Mira Sinha. It is also pertinent to mention that the pension could not be sanctioned without No Liability Certificate. And it is on record that the college authority submitted the pension papers to this office along with No Liability Certificate. 2) It is queer enough to mention how the Treasury Officer could raise such question without otherwise being informed from the end of the college in question regarding Hostel Allowances of a Superintendent of a non-existant hostel in the eye of the Education Deptt. and the Directorate as well…………………” 7. It is really surprising that the Treasury Officer, Balurghat Treasury No. 1 decided that the appellant herein was not entitled to draw house rent allowance while the competent authority like the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal specifically held that the appellant/writ petitioner herein cannot be denied the benefit of house rent allowance since she was not provided with separate quarter. The Treasury Officer is not authorised and/or competent to decide whether the appellant/writ petitioner was entitled to draw house rent allowance during the period in question or any step was required to be taken for recovery of any amount from the said appellant on the ground of alleged overdrawal of house rent allowance. 8. According to Mr. Kallol Basu, learned Counsel representing the appellant, Director of Public Instructions being the competent authority made it clear through correspondence that the accommodation given to the appellant in a building for looking after some girl students cannot be regarded as rent free accommodation provided by the college authority to a teacher. Mr. Basu further submitted that the decision of the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal in this regard should be accepted as final. We find merit in the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel of the appellant. 9. However, most important question now requires to be decided by this court is whether any amount in relation to alleged over drawal of house rent allowance by the appellant/writ petitioner during the period in question can be recovered after the retirement of the said appellant. 10. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the accommodation given to the appellant/writ petitioner herein in a building for looking after some girl students was not unknown to the college authority and the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal also refused to recognise the said building as a recognised hostel for the girl students of the college. Mr. Basu further submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner never made any misrepresentation or committed any fraud in order to receive house rent allowance during the period in question. 11. Mr. Basu also submitted that even if any excess payment has been made to the appellant/writ petitioner towards house rent allowance during the period in question then also such excess payment cannot be recovered from the appellant as the said payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation/fraud on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner. 12. Mr. 11. Mr. Basu also submitted that even if any excess payment has been made to the appellant/writ petitioner towards house rent allowance during the period in question then also such excess payment cannot be recovered from the appellant as the said payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation/fraud on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner. 12. Mr. Basu referred to and relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his aforesaid contentions: 1) (1994) 2 SCC 521 [Shyam Babu Verma and others vs. Union of India and others] 2) 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 [Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others] 3) (2009) 3 SCC 475 [Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar & others] 4) (2009) 3 SCC 117 [State of Bihar and others vs. Pandey Jagadishwar Prasad] 13. The law is well settled in this regard. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 , Supreme Court held: “11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs. 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess-amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same.” 14. In a recent decision reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 (Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others), Supreme Court held: “57. In a recent decision reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 (Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others), Supreme Court held: “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.” 15. In the present case, we are satisfied that no excess payment has been made towards house rent allowance to the appellant/writ petitioner during the period in question by the respondent authorities due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee concerned namely, the appellant/writ petitioner and as a matter of fact, no such allegation of misrepresentation or fraud has been made on behalf of the respondent authorities. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid clear pronouncements of law by the Supreme Court, no step can be taken in the present case for recovery of any amount from the appellant/writ petitioner herein for alleged over drawal of house rent allowance during the period in question since no excess amount was ever paid to the said appellant/writ petitioner towards house rent allowance on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner. 16. For the aforementioned reasons, we are unable to approve the decisions of the learned Single Judge as the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. From the records we find that a learned Single Judge of this court passed an interim order in the aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner on 23rd March, 2005 directing the respondent authorities to pay the entire retiral dues to the said appellant/writ petitioner keeping aside Rs. 1,46,000/-and to keep the said amount in a Fixed Deposit Account in a nationalised bank. In the said interim order learned Single Judge further directed that the writ petitioner will get the interest at the rate of 9.5% p.a. on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,46,000/-and to keep the said amount in a Fixed Deposit Account in a nationalised bank. In the said interim order learned Single Judge further directed that the writ petitioner will get the interest at the rate of 9.5% p.a. on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,46,000/- from the date of her retirement till the date of disbursement in the event the said writ petitioner succeeds. 18. We, therefore, now direct the respondent authorities to pay the aforesaid undisbursed amount of Rs. 1,46,000/- to the appellant/writ petitioner herein together with interest at the rate of 9.5% p.a. from the date of retirement of the said appellant till the date of actual disbursement of the amount. 19. This appeal thus stands allowed. 20. In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs. 21. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on completion of usual undertaking.