1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.399 of 2024 ----- The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Anr. .......... Appellants. -Versus- Jai Kishore Choudhary & Ors. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I For the Res. No.2 : Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A. (State of Bihar) For the Res. No.3 : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate ----- Order No.10 Date: 29.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and Mr. Prashant Kumar, Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand. 2. Pursuant to our order of 27th April, 2026, Mr. Prashant Kumar has appeared before the Court and also filed his reply duly supported by an affidavit. 3. Mr. Prashant Kumar has, admirably explained to us the procedures in such matters and has finally submitted that in this particular case, no deduction from the pension being disbursed to the 1st respondent (original petitioner) has ever been made right from the beginning. He, therefore, submitted that there was no question of refunding the allegedly deducted amount to the 1st respondent. 4. In the above regard, we refer to paragraph 12 of the reply filed by Mr. Prashant Kumar, which reads as follows:- “That it is pertinent to submit that on the basis of details, related to pension being disbursed, received from AGM, Centralized Pension Processing Center (CPPC), Patna vide 2 letter no.Agm/CPPC/R/03 dt. 28.04.2026, the Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur, vide letter no.382 dt. 28.04.2026, informed the department that no deduction from the pension being disbursed to the petitioner has ever been made right from the beginning.” 5. Along with the reply, some documents have also been annexed which confirmed that there was never any deduction made from the 1st respondent’s pension despite the impugned order, which was set aside by the learned Single Judge. Now that the appeal against the learned Judge’s order has been dismissed, all that the respondents have to ensure is that there are no deductions based on the order which is already set aside. The issue of refund, would not arise because it is pointed out that there were never any deductions made from the pension. 6. Learned counsel for the Accountant General, Jharkhand appears and confirms that no deductions have been made from the 1st respondent’s pension. He pointed out that this has been communicated to the State Government in writing and a copy of such written communication is already annexed to the reply filed by Mr. Prashant Kumar. 7. Considering the above explanation tendered by Mr. Prashant Kumar, we discharge the notice and close this proceeding. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 29th April, 2026 AKT/Rohit Uploaded on 29.04.2026