IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.8 of 2006 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS Versus DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : None ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad --------------- Dated, the 1st September, 2008. On 28th June, 2004, the Single Judge disposed of 15 writ petitions by a common order. The employers in all these cases are different. The present appeal is by the State Bank of India and its functionaries aggrieved by the order 28th June, 2004 to the extent by that order writ petition filed by Deoki Nandan Prasad (an erstwhile employee of the Bank) came to be disposed of. 2. It is true that the grievance of the original writ petitioner-Deoki Nandan Prasad (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) related to the retiral dues but on the basis of the facts of the present case, it can be safely said that that writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 6870 of 2004 filed by Deoki Nandan Prasad could not have been disposed of on the basis of order dated 19th September, 2003 passed in the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7054 - 2 - of 2003 based on which the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition of Deoki Nandan Prasad. The order dated 19th September, 2003 disposing of group of matters being C.W.J.C. No. 7054 of 2003 and other cases reads thus: “Under such circumstances, this Court keeping in view the nature of grievance and the delay caused for redressal of such grievance and corresponding duty/liability of the concerned authority considers it expedient to dispose of all these writ petitions with a direction that the sanctioning authority/concerned authority/Respondents must fully redress the grievance of the petitioners raised in the writ petition and file two paragraphs affidavit personally sworn by the concerned authority by 20th October, 2003 that the grievance of the petitioner has fully been redressed/partly redressed and annex the details in the format placed below after serving copy on the learned counsel for the respective petitioner, which shall be placed on the respective records of the case. The said authority shall also attach photostat copy of sanction order/authority/ authorization/receipts of payment made with respect to redressal of the grievance, failing which the said authority shall be liable to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- from his pocket to the petitioner and the respective petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit upon which this Court shall take serious view of the matter and may consider to suo motu initiate contempt proceeding as well against such authority. On filing of two pages affidavit by the petitioner, the matter shall be listed „For Orders‟. The petitioner may also serve a copy of this order along with the copy of writ petition upon the non-appearing concerned authority either personally or through registered post for its strict compliance. It is, however, made clear that all such authority referred to above shall not be allowed to take any defence that he was not aware of this order. Further, if any of the petitioner feels aggrieved by the redressal of his grievance, he will be at liberty to file representation with full detail before the authority concerned, which if filed within two weeks the authority concerned shall consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned order within two weeks thereafter. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned Advocate General, Chief Secretary, Government of - 3 - Bihar, Senior Standing Counsel for Union of India and its officials and also on Mr. J.P. Karn, Sr. Standing Counsel for Accountant General and to the Advocates‟ Association, Bar Association and Lawyers‟ Association for circulation and its strict compliance.” 4. In so far as the present case is concerned, we find from the averments made in paragraph 25 of the writ petition that the Manager (Provident Fund Department) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna by his letter dated 17th December, 1987 intimated the petitioner that he was not entitled for pension benefit as he was over 38 years on the day of his appointment. 5. The claim of the original writ petitioner (since deceased) having already been rejected with regard to his entitlement to pension benefit, subsequent representations by the erstwhile petitioner are not of much use. The Single Judge has not, in the impugned order, touched at all what has been stated in paragraph 25 of the writ petition. As a matter of fact, the letter dated 17th December, 1987, whereby the original petitioner‟s claim for pension benefit came to be rejected is not at all taken into consideration. 6. The order of the Single Judge, therefore, becomes unsustainable in so far as the controversy raised in the writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 6870 of 2004 is concerned, from which the present appeal arises. 7. We may notice here that during pendency of the appeal, the respondent (original petitioner) died and in his place his legal representatives have been brought on record. They put in - 4 - appearance through their Advocate, Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar. However, he is not present. 8. Be that as it may, the impugned order dated 28th June, 2004 has to be set aside in so far as C.W.J.C. No. 6870 of 2004 (Deoki Nandan Prasad v. the State Bank of India & Ors.) is concerned and we order accordingly. 9. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J Pawan/-