JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. PK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned standing counsel for the P&RD Department, Mr. S.S Roy, learned State counsel for the authorities in the Pension Department as well as Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Chowkidar in Chenimara Hospital on 27.05.1977 and subsequently retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation as Junior Assistant of Chenga Anchalik Panchayat on 31.01.2018. After his retirement, the petitioner applied for the retirement benefits and pension before the authority. 3. The Finance & Accounts Officer in the Director of Pension, Assam had made a communication dated 11.04.2019 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barpeta by which an amount of Rs.1,11,564/- was sought to be recovered as an excess drawal. 4. The said communication has 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 pensionary benefits cannot be made in respect of any salary that was paid to an employee during her service period for no fault of her own. 5. In the communication of 11.04.2019, it is noticed that there is no such conclusion of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Pension, Assam that the excess salary was paid to the petitioner because of any fault of his or because of any overt act on his part, which had contributed to such payment of excess salary. In the absence of any such material, it can be concluded that the excess salary was paid to the petitioner because of no fault of her. 6. 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 service tenure because of no fault of his, such excess payment cannot be recovered from the retirement benefits. 7. 7. The aforesaid provisions of law squarely applies to the fact of this case and as such, the recovery sought to the made by the communication of 11.04.2019 would not be 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 his 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. 8. Further, in the event, the authorities arrive at a situation where the excess payment can no longer be recovered from the pensionary benefits, the authorities shall consider and process the payment of pension to the petitioner as per law. 9. However, as submitted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, it is provided that as the authorities shall 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 him. 10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.