JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned standing counsel, APDCL. 2. The petitioner earlier served as a lineman Grade-II in the Office of the Nalbari Electrical Division of the APDCL and he had superannuated from his service on 30.12.2016. 3. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by a communication dated 27.7.2017 of the Auditor, Audit Wing, APDCL made to the Assistant General Manager, Nalbari Electrical Circle. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the said communication, an amount of Rs. 1,97,005/- is sought to be deducted from the retirement benefit of the petitioner. The ground stated in the communication is that earlier during his service period, there was a wrong fixation of pay sometime in the year 1984 and 1986. As a result of such wrong fixation of the pay, the petitioner had been paid certain excess amount during his service career. 5. The said communication of the respondent-APDCL is being challenged on the ground that as per the law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case and Shyam Babu Verma's case, an excess amount paid to an employee during his service carrier because of no fault of his own cannot be deducted from his retirement benefit after his superannuation. 6. Accordingly, reference has been made in paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih's case which is reported as State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 . Similar law had also been laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Shy am Babu Verma's case which is reported as Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 . 7. Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned standing counsel for the APDCL fairly submits that the deduction from the retirement benefit of the petitioner is unsustainable in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. This court is also of the view that such deduction is not permissible as per the law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case and Shyam Babu Verma's case. 9. In such view of the matter, the impugned communication dated 27.7.2017 is hereby set aside and it is provided that the respondent-authorities shall not deduct the said amount from the retirement benefit of the petitioner. As submitted by Mr. 9. In such view of the matter, the impugned communication dated 27.7.2017 is hereby set aside and it is provided that the respondent-authorities shall not deduct the said amount from the retirement benefit of the petitioner. As submitted by Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned standing counsel, APDCL, it is provided that setting aside of the communication is only with respect to the recovery of the amount and not for any other purpose. 10. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.