JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. KR Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PN Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Ms. RB Bora, learned standing counsel for the BTC, Ms. DD Barman, learned counsel for the authorities in the Pension Department as well as Mr. P Nayak, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department, Assam. 2. The husband of the petitioner who was working as a Head Teacher in 596 No. Rajpara LP School in the district of Chirang, Assam, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2018. After his retirement, when the matter was processed for payment of his pensionery benefits, the communication dated 30.07.2019 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of the Directorate of Pension, Assam was made addressed to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bijni, in the district of Chirang, Assam by which it was provided that during the service tenure, the husband of the petitioner was paid a salary higher than his actual scale of pay. Accordingly, by the said communication, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bijni, Chirang was required to do the needful. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner died on 19.06.2021. 3. 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 pensionery benefits cannot be made in respect of any salary that was paid to an employee during his service period for no fault of his own. 4. In the communication of 30.07.2019, 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 husband of 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 cannot be concluded whether the excess salary was paid to the husband of the petitioner because of any fault of his. 5. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be concluded whether the excess salary was paid to the husband of the petitioner because of any fault of his. 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, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 and State of Punjab and Others–vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (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. 6. The aforesaid provisions of law squarely be applicable to the fact of this case and as such, the recovery sought to the made by the communication of 30.07.2019 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 husband of the petitioner because of any overt act of the husband 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 husband 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 husband of 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. It is stated that as per the direction of the respondent authorities, the authority concerned had already prepared the recovery statement of the excess amount of Rs.1,53,743/-which was paid to the husband of the petitioner during his service tenure. 8. The respondent authorities shall examine as to whether the over drawal of salary by the husband of the petitioner was because of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part or it was because of any fault of the respondent authorities. 8. The respondent authorities shall examine as to whether the over drawal of salary by the husband of the petitioner was because of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part or it was because of any fault of the respondent authorities. If the authorities arrive at the conclusion that the over-drawal of salary by the husband of the petitioner was not because of any fault on the part of the husband of the petitioner, 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 her husband. 9. The aforesaid exercise be done by the respondent authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.