Judgment Barin Ghoshm, J. 1. By the judgment and order under appeal dated 20.12.1996 three writ petitions were dealt with. One of them registered as CWJC No. 7108/92 was filed by the respondents in LPA No. 177 of 1997. The other LPA has been filed by the writ petitioner in CWJC No. 8015/93. 2. The facts of the case and respective contentions of the parties in the said writ petitions have been elaborately dealt with by the judgment and order under appeal. We need not go into the details thereof. 3. We would however, highlight the salient facts which are not in dispute. 4. The appellant bank in LPA No. 177 of 1997 is the employer of the writ petitioners in both the aforementioned writ petitions. The writ petition registered as CWJC No. 7108 of 1992 was filed by 8 petitioners; whereas writ petition registered as 8015/1993 was filed by one petitioner. In CWJC No. 7108/92 the petitioners contended that they are Senior Managers/Area Managers of the employer and accordingly were entitled to Grade II scales as determined by NIT and as was accepted and granted by the employer Bank, law by the order impugned in the said writ petition, it was decided that writ petitioners in the said writ petition were not entitled to Grade II scales, but Grade I scale. In CWJC No. 8015/93 the petitioner contended that while the petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 were promoted to the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers from the post of Branch Manager, reservation policy as contained in the promotion policy was not adopted and accordingly no Scheduled Caste as that of petitioner in CWJC No. 8015/93 was promoted. He, therefore, sought for promotion to the higher post on the basis of such reservation policy. 5. The admitted facts of the case are that the employer Bank was established in the year 1979. In 1979 itself it recruited 14 persons as Branch Managers. Eight petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 were amongst those 14 persons. The petitioner in CWJC No. 8015/93 was recruited in the year 1980. On 31.12.84 NABARD authorised the employer Bank to engage Area Managers/ Senior Managers by promotion only, with the condition that if suitable officers are not available Area Managers/ Senior Managers can be engaged temporarily from amongst the officers of the sponsor Bank and other Banks/organizations on deputation. The petitioner in CWJC No. 8015/93 was recruited in the year 1980. On 31.12.84 NABARD authorised the employer Bank to engage Area Managers/ Senior Managers by promotion only, with the condition that if suitable officers are not available Area Managers/ Senior Managers can be engaged temporarily from amongst the officers of the sponsor Bank and other Banks/organizations on deputation. It provided that the Area Managers/Senior Managers shall be entitled to special pay of Rs. 75.00 per month over the grade of pay of the officer concerned. While specifying the eligibility conditions, it was mentioned that 8 years of service as officer in the Bank would be necessary subject to relaxation of maximum two years with prior approval of NABARD. In the matter of policy pertaining to promotion it prescribed seniority-cum-merit. 6. The petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 who were then working as Link Officers, though in the post of Branch Managers, asked for special pay of Rs. 75.00 as payable to Area Managers/Senior Managers in terms of said decision of NABARD dated 31.12.84. The employer Bank acceded to such request subject to any contrary decision by NABARD. Admittedly, no contrary decision was taken by NABARD. Subsequently, NABARD dealt with the special pay and provided that 10% to the basic, instead of Rs. 75.00 per month, be paid. This too was implemented by the employer Bank and accordingly, the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 started getting the special pay payable to Senior Managers/ Area Managers although they were not promoted to the posts of Area Managers/ Senior Managers inasmuch at no stage any step was taken to select the promotees on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The reason is three folds. Firstly, though the employer Bank sanctioned 9 posts of Senior Managers/Area Managers, the sponsor bank did not approve the same. Secondly, when the petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 were accorded the special pay none of them had admittedly completed 8 years of service and at the same time admittedly NABARD did not grant relaxation to any of them. Thirdly, at that stage in accordance with the directions contained in the decision of NABARD dated 31.12.84 for temporary period officers of the sponsor Bank and other Banks/organizations could alone be appointed as Area Managers/Senior Managers on deputation. Thirdly, at that stage in accordance with the directions contained in the decision of NABARD dated 31.12.84 for temporary period officers of the sponsor Bank and other Banks/organizations could alone be appointed as Area Managers/Senior Managers on deputation. It is true that the employer Bank prescribed 100 marks to assess the merit divided into 70 marks for performance and appraisal and 30 marks for interview, but did not fix the cut off mark which also suggests that no step at any point of time had been taken even after the employees of the Bank had acquired 8 years of experience of working to select for promotion any candidate on seniority-cum-merit. 7. There is no dispute that NIT on being approached by the workers working in Banks as that of the employer Bank prescribed scale of pay payable to different categories of employees employed by such Banks and while doing so prescribed Grade II scale to Senior Managers/ Area Managers working for such banks. There is also no dispute that those 8 writ petitioners were accorded by the employer Bank grade II scale. Subsequent thereto, by letter dated 8.6.92 the employer Bank called upon the petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 to submit their papers. By that letter they had time to submit such papers until 12th June, 1992 which was later on prepond to 11.6.92 by yet another letter. These two letters admittedly did not disclose the reason for which such papers were sought for. Admittedly, by the order impugned in CWJC No. 7108/92 it was held out that since writ petitioners in the said writ petition were not promoted to the post of Senior Mangers/ Area Managers they were only entitled to the scale of Grade I as prescribed by NIT and not the scale of Grade II. 8. While dealing with the writ petition the learned Judge by the impugned order interfered with said decision only on the ground that before doing what was done by the order impugned in the said writ petition the petitioners were atleast entitled to a notice. We see no reason to interfere with such observation made by the learned Judge, inasmuch as it was the employer Bank who had given initially Rs. 75 more to the said writ petitioners and thereupon 10% of their basic salary in addition to what they were otherwise entitle and later on fixed them in Grade II. We see no reason to interfere with such observation made by the learned Judge, inasmuch as it was the employer Bank who had given initially Rs. 75 more to the said writ petitioners and thereupon 10% of their basic salary in addition to what they were otherwise entitle and later on fixed them in Grade II. None of these things were done by petitioners unilaterally. These were the actions of the appellant Bank based on the initial representation made by the said writ petitioners. When the appellant Bank sought to alter the same, the petitioners were entitled to atleast a notice that the bank is seeking to alter the same so that they could bring appropriate records before the Bank and demonstrate that what they were getting as remuneration they were entitled to. That having not been done we see no reason why the learned Judge could not interfere with the impugned decision. 9. However, having regard to the fact that for the reasons already indicated above, none of the said writ petitioners was promoted to the post of Senior Manager/Area manager, the one and only logical conclusion would be that the employer Bank while granting special pay to the said writ petitioners as payable to Senior Managers/ Area Managers, first in the sum of Rs. 75.00 and later on additional 10% of their salary, acknowledged the fact that as Link Officers those writ petitioners were discharging duties akin to the duties of Senior Managers/ Area Managers and certainly more than the duties of Branch Managers and as such they were entitled to remuneration more than what is payable to Branch Managers. Inasmuch as those petitioners were being paid additional remuneration, another Branch Manager recruited almost at the same time when the said writ petitioners were appointed in the year 1979 and was also discharging duties of Link Officer came to this Court and prayed for a direction of being treated similarly to that of the said writ petitioners. This Court acceded to such claim and accordingly issued appropriate directions. Promptly, thereafter in order not to give the said gentleman the remuneration as was being paid to the petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92, the said gentleman was transferred to a Branch where he had no duty of a Link Officer and accordingly, was paid salaries of Branch Manager and not of the petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92. 10. Promptly, thereafter in order not to give the said gentleman the remuneration as was being paid to the petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92, the said gentleman was transferred to a Branch where he had no duty of a Link Officer and accordingly, was paid salaries of Branch Manager and not of the petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92. 10. In the award of NIT, nowhere it has been acknowledged that the persons officiating as Senior Manager/ Area Manager shall be entitled to the salaries in Grade II. While adopting the award passed by NIT, the employer Bank also did not acknowledge that it would pay officiating allowance to people discharging the duties of Senior Managers/ Area Managers in their officiating capacity in Grade II. It, however, started giving salary to the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 in the scale of Grade II only when their salaries were purported to be fitted on the basis of the award granted by NIT. 11. It is well settled in law that a mistake can always be rectified. If a mistake is to be rectified such rectification should be made in the normal circumstance upon notice to the person who has been benefited by reason of such mistake. In the instant case such notice was admittedly not given. However, having regard to the fact that this Court is of the view that such a mistake has taken place and that the parties have had ample opportunity to bring on record not only their contentions but also documents to support the same, it would not be appropriate to return the matter only for non service of notice. 12. It is true that the mistake was only to the extent of fitting the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 in Grade II, but rectification of such mistake has not been properly done, inasmuch as it is nobodys case that the said writ petitioners were not entitled to be fitted in Grade I and since they were acknowledged to have had been discharging higher responsibility would also be entitled to 10% of their pay as officiating allowance. That was not accorded to the said petitioners by the impugned order. 13. That was not accorded to the said petitioners by the impugned order. 13. In none of the pleadings in any of the writ petitions, it has been stated by the employer Bank that at the time when the impugned order was passed any of those 8 writ petitioners was not discharging the higher responsibility, for which the Bank had agreed to pay the said writ petitioners officiating allowance. 14. In view of sec. 71 of Indian Contract Act, it is permissible in India to recover any money paid under mistake. However, the moment an employer pays remuneration payable to his employee, it makes a representation that the employee concerned is entitled to such remuneration which is being paid to him. In law, if a public employer pays by mistake any money which is not payable to an employee, commitment of such mistake may be stopped and accordingly, from future the employee concerned is not entitled to receive the larger remuneration paid to him by mistake, but the employer is not entitle to recover the money already paid by mistake until such time the mistake was detected, unless of course in the matter of commitment of such mistake the employee concerned had any role to play. 15. Inasmuch as no promotion in fact had been given to any of the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92, but they were paid slightly higher remuneration for discharging higher duties, there cannot be any grievance of the petitioner of CWJC No. 8015/93, for it is not the case of the petitioner in CWJC No. 8015/93 that he was also made to work in the same manner as the petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 had been made to work. 16. In those circumstances, for what we have stated above we would interfere with the judgment and order under appeal to a limited extent by declaring that petitioners in CWJC No. 7108/92 were entitled to remuneration in Grade I scale as awarded by NIT to be appropriately fitted plus 10% thereof for the higher responsibility discharged by them on and from 1.7.1992 and any remuneration paid to them prior to 8.6.92, i.e., the date of the decision impugned in CWJC No. 7108/92, shall not be recovered from them on the ground that they were not entitled to the same. 17. This disposes of both the appeals.