JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4661 of 2010 by which the decision taken by the appellant-Bank for recovery of the amount of Rs. 2,19,193/- which according to the appellant-Bank has been paid to the respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner, for the period from February, 2003 till December, 2008 to which the writ petitioner, the respondent no. 1 herein, was not entitled for.

2. The facts of the case which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:

It is the case of the writ petitioner that her husband while working as Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department had opted for getting pension from the appellant-Bank. The writ petitioner, according to the appellant-Bank has been paid excess amount of Rs.2,19,193/- for the period from February, 2003 till December, 2008 which was not according to her entitlement and as such, the order was communicated to the writ petitioner for recovery of the said amount.

The respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has challenged the same by filing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4661 of 2010. The learned Single Judge after putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, has allowed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity since while putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra), the very fact of the case which was bearing upon the decision taken by the appellant-Bank of making recovery from the writ petitioner has not been appreciated in right perspective.

4. It has been contended by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) wherein in the context of the master and employee relationship that judgment was passed. But, herein, the appellant-Bank was having no master employee relationship with the writ petitioner rather the Bank has acted only as an agent on the option being rendered for the family pension and the writ petitioner, in course thereof, has been paid excess amount to her entitlement, therefore, the decision has been taken by the appellant on the basis of the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India issued on 17.03.2016 as also by taking into consideration the undertaking furnished by the husband of the writ petitioner wherein it has been undertaken that if any amount to which he is not entitled to or any excess amount if which will be credited, he would not be entitled.

Learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid premise has submitted that the impugned judgment requires interference.

5. This Court while hearing the appeal has issued notice upon the respondent no. 1 as would appear from the order dated 12.09.2022 both under registered cover with A/D as also by ordinary process. The steps were taken. The office note dated 17.03.2023 reflects on the basis of the service report received that ‘notice hanged on the front door’ which has been kept at Flag-R. The due acknowledgement receipt has also been received which has been kept at Flag-S.

6. This Court had perused the office note and considering the fact that the notice was not personally received by the party concerned, therefore, again vide order dated 21.03.2023 had directed the appellant to take steps for fresh service of notice upon the respondent no. 1 to be served through the Argora Police Station. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi was directed to ensure service of notice upon the respondent no. 1. For ready reference, the order dated 21.03.2023 is being reproduced as und