JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is a person who is to retire at the end of the year 2019. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that on July 23, 2018 he requested the Headmaster and Secretary, Halisahar Mallickbag High School (H.S.), to complete his pension application form. He requested the Headmaster to complete all the formalities so that upon superannuation he would be eligible to obtain his retiral benefits. 3. Upon receiving the said letter the Headmaster wrote back to him on the very next day stating that the E-pension process has been hindered due to the excess leave and overdue taken by the petitioner. The Headmaster provided a calculation sheet that shown that due to excess leave, the petitioner had overdrawn Rs. 2,18,600/-. The petitioner once again received a letter from the Headmaster on August 28, 2018 demanding the recovery of Rs. 2,18,600/- stating that unless the refund is made by the petitioner the E-pension form cannot be filled in. The Headmaster pointed out several discrepancies such as non-signing of the Service Book, since 31.12.1998 and the fact that in spite of repeated requests no refund has been made by the petitioner. 4. Affidavits have been filed by the respondent State authorities and the School authorities. In the said affidavit of the State authorities, several issues have been raised wherein the authorities have stated that the petitioner failed to sign his Service Book, the petitioner drew increments under ROPA 2009 upon making false statements and enjoyed unauthorised leave and failed to refund the money for the said unauthorised leave. 5. The School authorities submitted that the petitioner had taken a leave of 59 days during the period 12.08.2002 to 09.10.2002 and this leave was taken without any prior sanction. The School authorities further submitted by letter dated 14th September, 2009 the School authorities had written to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Barrackpore, that a resolution has been taken in favour of the petitioner for granting special leave for the period 12.08.2002 to 02.09.2002. The School authorities requested the District Inspector of Schools to take a decision with regard to the same. 6. The School authorities requested the District Inspector of Schools to take a decision with regard to the same. 6. This letter to the District Inspector of Schools has remained unanswered till date and there has been neither an approval nor a rejection of the request made by the School authorities by the District Inspector of Schools. 7. The entire dispute basically revolves around 59 days leave that was taken by the writ petitioner in the year 2002 for which the school authorities had sought an approval for special leave from the District Inspector of Schools in the year 2009. As pointed out above, till date there has been not a whisper from the District Inspector of Schools with regard to the letter written by the school authorities. 8. Mr. Biswas, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further relied on the Judgment of this Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and placed paragraph 18 therein. The said paragraph is delineated below as follows: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group –C and Group – D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made, from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” 9. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made, from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” 9. It is the submission of the petitioner that the ratio of the above Judgment is that the employer cannot seek to recover from an employee who is due to retire within one year. 10. Mr. Biswas, further submits that it is only upon his own letter dated 23rd July, 2018 that the school authorities suddenly woke up to the factum of allegedly unauthorised leave taken by him in the year 2002. He submits that such a flimsy ground cannot be a reason to recover money from him when no action had been taken for over 16 years. 11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the materials on record. 12. On reading of the Judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) it is axiomatic that the employer cannot seek to recover money from an employee who is to retire within one year. The position would have been different if there had been a dispute that was present and subsisting between the employer and the employee before one year of retirement of the employee. In the present case there is a complete silence from the side of the school authorities as also the District Inspector of Schools with regard to any misdemeanor on the part of the petitioner. The entire dispute has started in July 2018 when the petitioner wrote to the school authorities requesting them to complete E-pension papers so that he could get the retiral benefit after his superannuation at the end of the year. Furthermore, the dispute is basically with regard to the 59 days unauthorised leave of 2002 and would have been sorted out by the District Inspector of Schools if he had replied to the letter written by the school authorities seeking special leave on exceptional circumstances on behalf of the petitioner. However, the same was not done in the year 2009 nor ever after. 13. In view of the above, I am of the view that the school authorities cannot at this stage insist on the petitioner refunding the amount for unauthorised leave as such a recovery is barred by the Judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra). However, the same was not done in the year 2009 nor ever after. 13. In view of the above, I am of the view that the school authorities cannot at this stage insist on the petitioner refunding the amount for unauthorised leave as such a recovery is barred by the Judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra). In any event, the school authorities themselves in the year 2009, by resolution had decided to grant special leave on exceptional circumstances to the writ petitioner and also written to the District Inspector of Schools praying for such an approval to be granted. The school authorities cannot now play hot and cold and stop the retiral benefits to the writ petitioner. 14. In light of the above, the school authorities are directed to complete the service book and the E-pension documents of the petitioner without insisting on any refund made by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from date. 15. Needless to say, the petitioner shall comply with all the necessary formalities that are required to be done at his end. 16. With the above terms, the writ petition W.P. 17917(W) of 2018 is disposed of. 17. All parties to act on the Website copy of this order.