JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department, and Mr. K. Nayak, learned counsel for the Pension Department. 2. The petitioner who was working as Demonstrator (Chemistry) Palashbari R.B.H.S. & M.P. School, Kamrup(R), retired from service on 31.01.2016. After her retirement, when the matter was processed for payment of her pensionery benefits, vide the order/communication dated 19.04.2018 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, an amount of Rs. 2,82,113/- was adjusted from the leave encashment benefits of the petitioner. Later on, a communication dated 28.06.2018 was made by the Jt. Director, Secondary Education to the Director of Pension, stating that the total overdrawn amount by the petitioner was Rs. 9,97,113/-, out of which, Rs. 2,82,113/- was already adjusted and therefore, the balance adjustable amount was Rs. 7,15,000/-. 3. The said order/communications have been assailed in this writ petition on the ground that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, recovery from the pensionery benefits cannot be made in respect of any over payment that was paid to an employee during his/her service period for no fault of his/her own. 4. In the order/communications of 19.04.2018 and 28.06.2018, it is noticed that there is no such conclusion that the excess payment was made to the petitioner because of any fault of her or because of any overt act on her part, which had contributed to such excess payment. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be concluded whether the excess payment was made to the petitioner because of any fault of her. 5. The law in this respect has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 and State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein it had been held that in the event an excess salary is paid to an employee during his/her service tenure because of no fault of his/her, such excess payment cannot be recovered from the retirement benefits. 6. The aforesaid provisions of law squarely applicable to the fact of this case and as such, the recovery already made vide the communication dated 19.04.2018 amounting to Rs. 6. The aforesaid provisions of law squarely applicable to the fact of this case and as such, the recovery already made vide the communication dated 19.04.2018 amounting to Rs. 2,82,113/- as well as the recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,15,000/- sought to the made by the communication of 28.06.2018 would not sustainable in its present form. However, as no material has been produced before this Court as to whether the excess salary was paid to the petitioner because of any overt act of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate that the ends of justice would be met if the authorities in the Pension Department make an assessment as to whether there was any contribution on the part of the petitioner in receiving such excess salary during her service tenure. In the event, if it is found that there was no such contribution from the petitioner leading to such excess payment, the authorities shall not insist upon the recovery in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated above. 7. Further, in the event, the authorities arrive at a situation where the excess payment can no longer be recovered from the pensionery benefits; the authorities shall consider and process the payment of pension to the petitioner as per law. The authorities shall now proceed with the payment of pension by taking into account the correct pay that the petitioner ought to have received and not the incorrect higher pay that was paid to her. 8. In the event, it is found that the excess payment was made to the petitioner because of any fault of her or because of any overt act on her part, the amount already recovered from the petitioner i.e. Rs. 2,82,113/- be refunded to the petitioner. 9. The aforesaid exercise be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.