WP(C) 6182/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the decision of the concerned departmental authority to recover an amount of Rs.37,814/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner for having, according to the State respondents, overstayed in service from 01.05.1999 to 07 .03.2000. Heard Ms. S Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I Choudhury, learn ed Standing Counsel, Public Works Department. The uncontroverted pleaded version of the petitioner in absence of any affidavit on behalf of the State respondents is that though initially he was appointed as a contingent labourer under the Public Works Department (for short hereafter re ferred to as the Department) in the year 1987, he was allocated a sanctioned pos t of Muster Roll labourer under it vide the office order No. 11/570, dated 17.08 .1987. While he was rendering his services without any blemish, he was served wi th a communication dated 07.03.2000 from the Assistant Executive Engineer, Dimow Roads Sub-Division to the effect that though he had been due for retirement on attainment of 60 years of age on 01.05.1999, he had continued beyond that date a nd that he would be relinquished from service on and from that date. By the impu gned office order No.1/179, dated 16.03.2001 an amount of Rs. 37,814/- was decid ed to be recovered from him as excess monthly salary drawn by him for the period from 01.05.1999 to 07.03.2000 in the face of the date of actual retirement i.e. 30.04.1999 as per the service rolls. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as he is an illiterate per son being totally unaware of the procedural requirements and the consequence of the lapses and failure on his part in this regard, the impugned action on the fa ce of the record is arbitrary and ought to be adjudged as such. Mr. Choudhury, though has stood by the validity of the decision submitted that i n the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the rung of the serv ice to which the petitioner belongs, appropriate order(s) may be passed by this Court. On a consideration of the materials on records, this Court is not in a position to discern that the overstayal of the petitioner in service beyond 30.04.1999 ha s been his deliberate doing. It is not unlikely that the petitioner who at all r elevant times was a muster roll labourer in the Department was unaware of the im plications of the bearing of his age on the continuance in service. On the other hand, it was the obligation of the departmental authority to be vigilant enough to inform him of his age of superannuation and retire him from service on the b asis thereof. Instead there has been a delayed realisation on its part and it wa s thereafter that by the letter dated 07.03.2000 the petitioner was intimated ab out his overstayal in service. No fault or lapse or any overt act on the part of the petitioner is decipherable in this regard. In the above view of the matter, this Court is inclined to sustain the plea rais ed on behalf of the petitioner. The impugned decision of recovery of an amount o f Rs. 37, 814/- as conveyed by the impugned order dated 16.03.2001 (Annexure 4 t o the writ petition) is interfered with. In other words, the respondents would n ot resort to any deduction as proposed. Needless to say, if meanwhile the aforementioned amount has been recovered from the petitioner’s retiral benefits, the same would be refunded forthwith. No cost s.