1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Upon a mention by the 1st respondent, who claims to be over 85 years old, we agreed to take up this letters patent appeal in the afternoon session, though, the same was listed at serial no. 71 on today’s cause list.

3. We are de-tagging L.P.A. No. 552 of 2024 because we propose to consider the same separately.

4. This L.P.A is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 18.12.2024 made in W.P.(S) No. 3396 of 2021.

5. W.P.(S) No. 3396 of 2021 was instituted by the 1st respondent to challenge letter dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure-14), by which the appellant Bank rejected the 1st respondent’s claim in his representation dated 16.01.2020. Learned Single Judge of this Court by its order dated 18.12.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6089 of 2018, again instituted by the 1st respondent, had directed the appellant Bank to consider and dispose of this representation dated 16.01.2020 in a time bound manner.

6. By the impugned letter dated 20.02.2020, the appellant-Bank has determined that an amount of Rs. 4,41,560.00 was the excess payment made to the 1st respondent and therefore, the same warranted a deduction. Pursuant to this decision, deduction of the amount of Rs. 4,41,560.00 was in fact made from the pensionary benefits, otherwise payable to the 1st respondent.

7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no error in determination of the excess paid amount of Rs.4,41,560.00. He pointed out that the 1st respondent had superannuated from his services as the employee of State of Bihar on 30.06.1999. He submitted that this was even before the formation of the State of Jharkhand effective from 15.11.2000. Therefore, Mr. Rajesh Kumar submitted that the benefits, if any, payable to the employees of the State of Jharkhand could never have been claimed by the 1st respondent. On account of Bank’s inadvertence, however, an excess payment was made to the 1st respondent to which the 1st respondent has no right whatsoever to retain.

8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar submitted that the 1st respondent, had in fact, instituted a contempt petition alleging disobedience of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 18.12.2019, but upon the appellant Bank issuing the letter dated 20.02.2020, agreed that there was compliance. This was recorded in the Lok Adalat proceedings based upon which even the contempt proceeding was disposed of. Mr. Rajesh Kumar therefore, submitted that the 1st respondent had no cause of action to institute W.P.(S) No. 3396 of 2021 to challenge the letter dated 20.02.2020.

9. Based on the above, Mr Rajesh submitted that the above crucial issues have not been considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 and therefore, the said order ought to be set aside.

10. Mr A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, contested all the contentions raised by Mr Rajesh Kumar and defended the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 on the basis of the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that the 1st respondent was forced to file several petitions and proceedings, and the relief now granted to him is just and proper. He submitted that the deduction of Rs. 4,41,560.00 was wholly unjustified, and that this Court had issued orders directing the State of Jharkhand to initially pay the 1st respondent and thereafter settle the accounts with the State of Bihar. For these reasons, Mr Sahani submitted that there is no case to warrant interference with the impugned order dated 18.12.2024.

11. On a demurrer and strictly without prejudice, Mr Sahani submitted that the amount deducted of Rs. 4,41,560.00 includes Rs. 2,10,488.00 paid to the 1st respondent towards notional promotion benefits, and the balance is towards pension revision on account of the 6th PRC. He therefore submitted that there was absolutely nothing wrong in the payment of Rs. 2,10,488.00 towards the notional promotion benefits, assuming, without in any manner accepting Mr Rajesh Kumar’s argument, based upon the 1st respondent’s retirement from the State of Bihar before the formation of the State of Jharkhand.

12. Accordingly, for the above reasons, Mr Sahani submitted that this appeal is meritless and should be dismissed with costs.

13. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

14. In this case, the 1st respondent, amongst the several petitions and proceedings filed by him, had instituted W.P.(S) No. 6089 of 2018 objecting to deductions from the pensionary benefits payable to him. Such deductions were effected by the appellant Bank, possibly without instructions from either the State of Jharkhand or the State of Bihar.

15. W.P.(S) No. 6089 of 2018 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.12.2019. By this order, the 1st respondent was given liberty to make a detailed representation to the appellant-Bank and the appellant- Bank was directed to dispose of this representation within the time-bound period.

16. The above directions were contained in paragraph-8 of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 18.12.2019, and the same are transcribed below, for the convenience of reference: -

                  “8. Be that as it may, considering fair submission of parties, petitioner is directed to approach before the respondent no. – 7 [The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, CPPC, Patna] in his office on 16.01.2020 at 12:30 p.m. and the respondent no. 7, in turn, shall give personal hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise his grievances by producing the calculation chart, if any. It is made clear that if it is found that petitioner has received any excess amount, the same shall be deducted from his account. However, if it is found that petitioner has not received any excess amount and recovery has been illegally made from his account and which is in teeth of order of this Court dated 01.02.2008, passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. W.P.(S) No. 1502 of 2002, the same shall be refunded to him without any delay and no further deduction shall be made from his account. Let the entire exercise  be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of representation of the petitioner before the competent authority.”

17. The appellant Bank did not adhere to the timeline set out by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 18.12.2019, thereby forcing the 1st respondent to institute Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 220 of 2020. This matter was referred to the National Lok Adalat and considered on 10.07.2021. By this time, the appellant Bank vide its letter dated 20.02.2020 disposed of the 1st respondent’s representation and, in that sense, complied with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 18.12.2019.

18. Therefore, the National Lok Adalat recorded the counsel for the 1st respondent's statement that the directions in the order dated 18.12.2019 had been complied with and that the contempt petition could be disposed of. However, we completely disagree with Mr Rajesh Kumar’s contention that such disposal or the statement made by the counsel for the 1st respondent amounted to acceptance of the correctness of the appellant Bank’s letter dated 20.02.2020. The contempt petition was disposed of because the direction to the appellant Bank was only to dispose of the petitioner’s representation. Since the representation was disposed of, the order was complied with. Therefore, the record of the National Lok Adalat or the disposal of the contempt petition could not be held as a bar to the 1st Respondent instituting W.P(S) No. 3396 of 2021.

19. However, insofar as Mr Rajesh Kumar’s second contention about the 1st respondent’s superannuation from the State of Bihar on 30.06.1999 is concerned, we find some merit therein. Since the 1st respondent admittedly superannuated on 30.06.1999, i.e., well before the formation of the State of Jharkhand, there was no question of the 1st respondent claiming benefits that might otherwise have been available to employees of the State of Jharkhand after its formation on 15.11.2000. Therefore, as a matter of principle, we agree with Mr Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant Bank, that the payment made to the 1st respondent on account of pension revision due to the 6th PRC was over and above the 1st respondent’s legitimate entitlement. A deduction of the amount towards the arrears of pension, to that extent, was justifiable and warrants no interference.

20. Mr Sahani on demurrer, however, submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that there was no warrant for any deductions on account of notional promotion benefits which come to Rs. 2,10,488 (Rs. 1,63,173+47,315). This amount is calculated based upon calculation sheet provided by the appellant Bank along with the impugned letter dated 20.02.2020. To this amount, the issue of the 1st respondent’s retirement on 30.06.1999 was immaterial, as there are orders directing the State of Jharkhand to bear the liability and thereafter to claim adjustments from the State of Bihar.

21. There is merit in Mr Sahani’s above contention. We are satisfied that there was no warrant for the deduction of Rs. 2,10,488/- towards the notional promotion benefits, which had already been paid to the 1st respondent. This payment was unrelated to the fact that the 1st respondent superannuated on 30.06.1999, i.e., well before the formation of the State of Jharkhand. Even the earlier orders of this court directing the State of Jharkhand to initially bear liability and thereafter to take up the matter with the State of Bihar were not given due weight by the Learned single judge. Since these crucial points were missed by the learned Single Judge, interference to this extent is warranted in the learned Single Judge’s impugned order dated 18.12.2024.

22. Accordingly, we partly allow this appeal by holding that the appellant Bank had no justification for deducting an amount of Rs. 2,10,488/- towards the notional promotion benefits arrears. However, we also hold that the deduction of the balance towards arrears of pension revision arising from the 6th PRC was proper. Accordingly, by modifying the impugned order, we direct the appellant bank to release/pay to the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 2,10,488/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of deduction till the date of payment within twelve weeks from today.

23. At this stage, Mr Rajesh Kumar states that the entire amount deducted has been transferred to the State Exchequer, and an affidavit to this effect has been filed in these proceedings. Upon reviewing the affidavit, we find no clarity therein. Only an account number has been given, without specifying whether this account relates to the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, we reiterate our above direction. However, if the amount is indeed transferred to any of the States, the appellant Bank is at liberty to seek a refund of this amount from the respective States. The State in which this amount is deposited (if at all) must refund it to the appellant Bank within eight weeks from the date of the demand, unless it has any justification not to do so.

24. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms without any order for costs. Pending I.A.s (if any) also stand disposed of.