JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - This writ petition involves challenge to the orders/directions, vide communications dated 8.6.2002 and 8.10.2004 thereby directing for recovery of Rs. 3,22,000/- AND Rs. 269/- from the petitioner. 2. Assailing the impugned directions, Sri S.Senapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and submitted that admittedly the petitioner was engaged as Authorised Collection Agent in the Indian Overseas. Bank at its Rourkela Branch with effect from 29.08.1979. As per Scheme, the petitioner was required to have door-to-door collection of deposits and this was otherwise known as “Deposit Collectors” in respect of the customers of the Indian Overseas Bank. A dispute was raised for regularization of service of Authorised Collection Agents and consequent upon a reference by the competent authority involving workmen of this nature of various banks and the Management of various banks to the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad registered as Industrial Dispute No. 14/1980. This dispute along with some other connected disputes were disposed of with an award of the Industrial Tribunal directing for regularization of such Agents, who were of below 45 years of age as on 3rd October, 1980 and the ineligible Agents in the process were also directed to the paid wages @ RS. 750/- per month for minimum deposit of Rs. 7500/- per month and also be paid incentives of 2% of the collection over and above Rs. 7500/- per month along with uniform conveyance of Rs. 50/- per month with further provision of gratuity of fifteen days on commission earned every year of service rendered. It is further brought to the notice of this Court by Sri S. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner that on challenging the aforesaid award, a writ petition was moved to the High Court of Hyderabad registered as W.P.C.(C) No. 9783/1989 and the writ petition was disposed of confirming the award but with little modification with specific direction to treat such employees as one category. The judgment of the High Court and the award involved therein there were also challenged in the Hon’ble apex Court, vide Civil Appeal No. 3355/1998 and the Hon’ble apex Court vide its judgment dated 13.2.2001 confirmed the judgment of the High Court as per the judgment reported in 2001(3) SCC 36 . The judgment of the High Court and the award involved therein there were also challenged in the Hon’ble apex Court, vide Civil Appeal No. 3355/1998 and the Hon’ble apex Court vide its judgment dated 13.2.2001 confirmed the judgment of the High Court as per the judgment reported in 2001(3) SCC 36 . Sri Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while the matter stood thus and upon compliance of the direction contained in the award, the Management while complying with the direction contained therein started making a deduction of the excess payment of commission involving the Agents, vide the impugned action. Sri Senapati referring to the directions contained in the award, the High Court judgment and the Hon’ble apex Court judgment contended that for the benefit being conferred upon the petitioner, upon finality of the dispute by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2001, no deduction for the excess payment in the meantime is permitted in the eye of law. Referring to two decisions involving a decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of B.Radhakrishnan vrs. State of Tamil Nadu & others reported in (2015) 17 SC 507 and a unreported decision of the Karnataka High Court dated 9th June, 2005 in the case of Sreedhara & others vrs. Corporation Bank, Sri Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the decision of the Karnataka High Court as well as the Hon’ble apex Court, the impugned action of the O.P. Management is also otherwise bad, which unless be interfered with and set aside by this Court, it will set a bad law. 3. Sri S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.P. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the O.P. Bank, defending the action of the Management contended that since the ultimate outcome involving the dispute came by way of the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court on 13th February, 2001 being a prospective action, benefit, if any, accrued involving surplus payment remaining contrary to the direction contained in the award and being confirmed by the Hon’ble apex Court, there remains no illegality in the action of the O.P. Management in the process of recovery resulting no interference in the impugned action by this Court. 4. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner became a beneficiary of the award involving Industrial Dispute No. 14/1980 being slightly modified and confirmed in W.P.(C) No. 9783/1989 and further being confirmed by the Hon’ble apex Court involving Civil Appeal No. 3355/1998 along with several other writ petitions disposed of on 13.02.2001 and reported in 2001(3) SCC 36 . But looking to the contentions raised herein, particularly recovery of excess payment for the implementation of the award involving the dispute, the judgment and the Hon’ble apex Court judgment involved herein and taking into consideration that the payment so made becomes bona fide and without any latches on the part of the petitioner. It is required to be considered here as to whether the bona fide payment of this nature of payment involved herein can be permitted to be recovered? Deciding such question, particularly involving similarly situated persons benefited by the above award/judgment and deciding a batch of cases, the Karnataka High Court allowing the Writ Appeal No. 6536/2003 disposed of on 9th June 2005 categorically observed that since the excess payment relates back to the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court involved therein, no recovery involving excess payment, if any, prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court is permissible in the eye of law. 5. In the similar situation, the Hon’ble apex Court considering the fate of similarly persons in the case of B. Radhakrishnah (supra) in paragraphs-16 to 18 held as follows:- “16. In somewhat similar facts, a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Shyam Babu Verma’s case (supra) had issued a direction against the Government not to make recovery of any excess payment in relation to the money which was already paid to the employees concerned because it was noticed that the excess payments were not made to the employees concerned on account of any fault on their part. This is what was held in para 11 in Shyam Babu’s case, “11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no ;way responsible for the same.” 17. Applying the same principle to the facts of the case in hand, we notice that firstly, the respondents issued an order sanctioning stepping up of the pay scale of the appellants on the strength of the order of High Court. Secondly, while claiming this relief, the appellants neither committed any fault nor made any incorrect/false statement to secure the benefits because it was being claimed only on the basis of parity and lastly, the appellants rendered their services for the period in question. 18. In the light of these reasons and further keepignin view the short controversy involved in the case which is somewhat akin to the case of Shyam Babu (supra), we are of the view that similar directions, which were given in the case of Shaym Babu, can also be given in these appeals against the respondents. In other words, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount from the appellants, which has been paid to them on the basis of stepping up of their pay scale. It is much more so when as mentioned above, the appellants have given up their challenge to the respondent’s main action taken against the appellants objecting for the grant of benefit of stepping up of their pay and confined their attack to the issue of recovery of excess amount from them. 19. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed in part. 19. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed in part. The impugned order is modified only to the extent of directing the respondents not to make recovery of any excess amount from the appellants in relation to the payment made to them towards stepping up of their pay scale.” 6. For the clear position of law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court and further as there has been excess payment under bona fide impression and being enjoyed by the beneficiary involving no fault of him, this Court declares the impugned action, vide letter dated 8.6.2002 and 8.10.2004 as bad in law and sets aside the same. The writ petition succeeds. Under the circumstances, no cost. Petitions succeeds.