Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the Officers' Association of Giridih, Kshetriya Gramin Bank along-with employees' association of the said Bank, Bank Staff's Association of the said Bank and also through the General Secretary of the Giridih Regional Rural Bank Officers Association. The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition on their behalf are essentially challenge to the recovery of the amount paid as computerization increment to the employees of the said Bank. The petitioners have, therefore, sought quashing of the letter dated 21st April, 2003 (Annexure-9); letter dated 28th April, 2003 (Annexure-10) and letter dated 15th June, 2002 (Annexure-7) as well as letter dated 1 st July, 2002 (Annexure-8), as a result of which the payment of the said amounts were either stopped or were directed to be recovered. These petitioners had sought such a relief citing direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Giridih, Kshetriya Gramin Bank has been set up by the Central Government in terms of Section 3 of the R.R.B. Act, 1976 and in exercise of power under Section 17 of the R.R.B. Act, the Central Government is empowered to determine the salary structure of the employees and officers of the Regional Rural Bank. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to a decision of the sponsoring bank, it was decided to provide advance increment for computerization to the employees of the Regional Rural Bank since 1 st April, 2000 and arrears since 1 st November, 1993. These benefits were directed to be stopped in view of the letter issued by the respondent no. 3 based upon which Annexure-8 letter dated 1 st July, 2002 was issued. Subsequently, vide letters contained at Annexures-9 & 10 dated 21 st April, 2003 and 28th April, 2003 issued by the respondent nos. 3 and 1 respectively, the directions were issued for recovery of the payments made as computerization increment from the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, came before this Court being aggrieved by the said directions and relying upon the orders passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7367 of 2001 and analogous cases in the case of Magadh Gramin Bank Officers' Association and Anr. and Bhojpur-Rohtas Gramin Bank Officers' Association vide order dated 17th December, 2002*. The petitioners, therefore, came before this Court being aggrieved by the said directions and relying upon the orders passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7367 of 2001 and analogous cases in the case of Magadh Gramin Bank Officers' Association and Anr. and Bhojpur-Rohtas Gramin Bank Officers' Association vide order dated 17th December, 2002*. According to them, against the said order, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 84 of 2003 also stood dismissed vide Annexure-12 by the Patna High Court restraining recovery of the said amount. 3. On' the other hand, the Respondents-Bank had appeared through their counsel and filed counter affidavit, in which it was indicated that the aforesaid decision to stop the payment and recovery of excess payment paid under the Head of computerization increment to the employees of the R.A.B. was taken pursuant to the decision of the sponsoring bank. It was also indicated that R.R.B. being guided by the guidelines issued by the NABARD and under the control of the Government of India is bound to obey and follow the guidelines in respect of pay structure and release of allowance increments etc. to its employees applicable uniformly throughout the country. It is the case of the respondents that the decision rendered by Patna High Court in identical circumstances restraining the Respondents - Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank from recovery of the amounts paid under computerization increment to its employees were subjected to challenge before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the aggrieved Bank in Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003. It was stated vide Annexure-A that by interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India payment of such increment was stayed, but it was also clarified that pending this appeal whatever amount has been paid shall not be recovered. These amounts were not recovered during the pendency of the writ application. However, the said Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003 has been decided finally vide judgment dated 17th February, 2010 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is submitted that the very same issue was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in relation to the judgment of Patna High Court, which the petitioners have relied herein. 4. However, the said Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003 has been decided finally vide judgment dated 17th February, 2010 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is submitted that the very same issue was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in relation to the judgment of Patna High Court, which the petitioners have relied herein. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Banks submits that after taking into account the decision taken by the NABARD and approved by the Government of India as contained in documents produced before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide letter dated 6th January, 2003 of the Government of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India came to a definite conclusion that the grant of computer increment to the employees/officers of RRBs was not favoured by the Banks and the NABARD which consensus was agreed to by the Government of India effectively declining the grant of computer increment to the employees/officers of the RRB. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India found that the decisions were not subjected to any challenge before the High Court and the directions issued by learned single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench in appeal of Patna High Court to the extent requiring the Regional Rural Bank to grant the said benefit was found to be unsustainable and accordingly the appeals were allowed in part and the orders passed by the High Court to that extent were set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also refused the prayer of the respondents-writ petitioners to challenge the said decision, however, making it clear that the order shall not prevent the respondents-association or any member thereof from challenging it in appropriate proceedings the validity of the decision taken by the Government of India subject to all just exceptions including delay and laches. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the writ petition preferred by the present petitioners is also bound to suffer the same ate, as the petitioners have challenged the recovery of the amount of computerization increment in the present writ application and no challenge to the decision of the NABARD and the Government of India taken in July, 2002 and January, 2003 has been made in the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, sought indulgence to challenge the said decision now by making a prayer in filing an amendment to the main writ application. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, sought indulgence to challenge the said decision now by making a prayer in filing an amendment to the main writ application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record including the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003. These writ petitioners had come before this Court for challenging the impugned letter dated 21 st April, 2003 (Annexure-9); letter dated 28th April, 2003 (Annexure-10) and letter dated 15th June, 2002 (Annexure-7) as well as letter dated 1 st July, 2002 (Annexure-8), whereby the Respondents-Bank had stopped the payment of computerization, increment and also sought to recover the said amount which had earlier been paid to them. These petitioners had come before this Court in July, 2003 itself by way of present writ application and relying upon the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7367 of 2001 and analogous cases. The Letters Patent Appeal against which was also said to have been dismissed on 4th February, 2003. The judgments are annexed as Annexures-11 & 12 to the writ application. The very same issues raised in the present writ application were subjected to appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by aggrieved Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank affected by the judgments rendered by the Patna High Court (supra) in Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003. The judgments are annexed as Annexures-11 & 12 to the writ application. The very same issues raised in the present writ application were subjected to appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by aggrieved Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank affected by the judgments rendered by the Patna High Court (supra) in Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after taking into account all contentions of the parties as also 'the decision of the NABARD on the consensus of the Bank vide letter dated 23rd July, 2002 and the Government of India decision as contained in compilation of documents comprising a letter dated 6th January, 2003, came to a definite conclusion that the Government of India and NABARD had taken a conscious decision declining the grant of computer increment to the employees/officers of the RRB leaving no manner of doubt relating to the admissibility of computer increment to the employees/officers of the R.R.B. In these circumstances, the request of the writ petitioners for challenging the said decision of the Government of India and the NABARD were refused by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court directing the Bank to grant the said benefits were found to be unsustainable and part of the order of the Patna High Court to that extent was accordingly set aside. It was also, made clear that the said judgment will not prevent the respondent-association or any member thereof from challenging it in appropriate proceedings the validity of the decision taken by the Government of India subject to all just exceptions including delay and laches. The aforesaid judgment has been rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 17th February, 2010 as indicated hereinabove already. But in the present case despite the writ petition having been pending since July, 2003 the writ petitioners have never earlier chosen to impugn the said decision of the NABARD and Government of India till date and now the petitioners have been making a prayer for seeking amendment in the main writ application to challenge the said decision. The aforesaid decision of the NABARD and Government of India had been taken in July, 2002 and January, 2003 itself and obviously the petitioners do not have any explanation for the delay in challenging the said decision even when the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was rendered in February, 2010. The aforesaid decision of the NABARD and Government of India had been taken in July, 2002 and January, 2003 itself and obviously the petitioners do not have any explanation for the delay in challenging the said decision even when the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was rendered in February, 2010. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is bound to follow the decision of the Honoble Supreme Court of India on an identical issue rendered in circumstances affecting the similar employees of the Regional Rural Bank for the same cause of action. The petitioners having failed to impugn the decision of the NABARD and the Government of India till date do not have any sufficient explanation for the delay and laches on their part and accordingly the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in similar circumstances are bound to govern the fate of the present petitioners as well. 7. However, so far as recovery part is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed out that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in similar circumstances had directed in the said judgment as contained in para 7 thereof that payment already made to the employees shall not be recovered from them for the period earlier to 16th December, 2002. In that case the petitioners are also entitled to the similar relief in the sense that amount already paid to the petitioners shall not be recovered. 8. In these circumstances, accordingly the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid term.