Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. The appellants-State of Jharkhand and others have preferred this appeal against the order dated 23.8.06 passed in W.P(S) No. 2814/06. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 2.9.97 passed by the Accountant General (A&E) II, Bihar, Patna as well as the letter dated 3.1.05 issued by the Block Development Officer, Chandan Keyari, Bokaro whereby a sum of Rs. 2,24,166.10 was sought to be recovered, as service dues, from the petitioner-1 st respondent after more than a decade of his retirement.

2. While hearing the said appeal, the Division Bench was informed that some matter with the similar issue is pending before the Full Bench, by order dated 12.3.07, this L.P.A was also directed to be placed before the Full Bench along with L.P.A No. 146/06. That is how this appear has been placed before this Bench.

3. The 1 st respondent-Padamalochan Kalindi was the writ petitioner. He retired from the Government Service in August 1989, as Jan Sewak, Chandan Keyari Block, Dist. Bokaro.

4. During his service period, as Jansewak in the same Block, he was given annual increments by the department vide Memo No. 37 dated 7.4.70, Memo No. 2270 dated 18.11.72 and Memo No. 315 dated 2.3.89.

5. the writ petitioner-1 st respondent retired, on attaining the age of superannuation without any thing adverse against him during his service period.

6. After his retirement, the petitioner was paid some of his retiral benefits. He was also paid provisional pension for sometime.

7. From June 1997 his provisional pension was suddenly stopped in the name of realizing and adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,24,166.10 outstanding against the writ petitioner.

8. A letter was issued by the Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Patna being Memo No. 16-324 dated 2.9.97 whereby it was informed that during his service period the petitioner was wrongly given increments, though he had not passed the Departmental Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination which was required for allowing annual increments.

9. The Block Development Officer, Chandankeyari on the basis of the said letter of Accountant General ((AE) and claiming outstanding dues not cleared by the writ petitioner during his service period, issued Memo No. 11 dated 3.1.05 showing total outstanding dues of Rs. 2,24,166.10 against the writ petitioner Rs. 1,20,939.80 claimed to be given to the writ petitioner-1 st respondent for various schemes during his service period and Rs. 1,03,226.20 was shown to be wrongly paid to him on account of the annual increments, claimed to be not payable before passing the Departmental Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. It was further mentioned that Rs. 1,65,293.00, the accumulated amount of the provisional pension from 1.6.97 to 31.3.04 was not sufficient for adjustment and still a sum of Rs. 58,873.10 was recoverable from him. The 1 st respondent was directed to pay the said balance amount so that papers for fixation of his final pension and gratuity can be forwarded to the Office of the Accountant General.

10. In the writ petition the 1 st respondent challenged the said letter of the Accountant General (A&E) as well as the letter of the Block Development Officer, Chandankeyari and also prayed for a direction to release his final pension and arrears of pension.

11. According to the 1 st respondent, nothing was due against him when he retired in the year 1989. The increments and other service benefits were paid by the respondents themselves without any mis-representation on the part of the petitioner and that the amounts paid to him as advance had been spent on the Schemes for which the amounts were given. He contended that the State and its authorities cannot unilaterally and arbitrarily calculate and determine the liability against the petitioner and that too after a long time of his retirement.

12. It was submitted that no amount can be deducted from pension without initiating any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and