19-August-2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

Long beyond the time set by the court, the bank finally made the back wages and other payments in 2019. But, claiming that the court judgment made no mention of pensionary benefits, they declined to pay them. Jayaprakash's lawyer contended that he was also entitled to a pension and that the delay was a willful and intentional act of contempt.

Although the payment delay was undeniable, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not seem to be "willful or contumacious." The bank's explanation of the administrative challenges that followed the merger was accepted by the court. Additionally, the court denied the pensionary benefits claim, ruling that a contempt process is not the appropriate venue for bringing new claims.

The court ordered the bank to provide Jayaprakash's widow a lump sum payment of Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation, acknowledging the substantial and prolonged delay in the disbursement of cash, which had been outstanding since the 1980s. To terminate the lengthy legal battle, the court dismissed the contempt case, denied the pension claim, and mandated the one-time payment.