ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent. The respondent No.1 is the original petitioner, who had preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.3728 of 1999(R). District Rural Development Authority had passed a resolution that from 1993 no bonus will be paid to their employees. The respondent No.1 (original petitioner) preferred a writ petition for getting the bonus and the learned Single Judge allowed him to get the bonus and direction was given to this appellant to pay the bonus from the year 1993-94 onwards. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with by this direction, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No.1. On 2nd August, 2017 also when the case was called out, nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. 3. Having heard counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that vide order dated 4th August, 1999, which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, it has been ordered that no bonus will be paid to the employees. This fact was already clarified much earlier and, hence, the bonus paid earlier in 1993-94 shall be recovered. Time & again, such type of direction has been given. Previously also, vide departmental letter No.3198 dated 16th June, 1995, this type of direction was given for not to make payment of the bonus. Even prior thereto, there was a direction for not to make payment of the bonus. Nonetheless, by virtue of old habits and because of clerical errors, the bonus has been paid to few of the employees and, hence, the respondent No.1 had preferred the writ petition to get the bonus which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. There is no right vested in the employees to get the bonus. There is a wide difference between the salary and the bonus. Salary is a matter of right when the work is already done, whereas, the bonus is an extra payment made by the employer. Bonus may be paid or may not be paid. 4. There is no right vested in the employees to get the bonus. There is a wide difference between the salary and the bonus. Salary is a matter of right when the work is already done, whereas, the bonus is an extra payment made by the employer. Bonus may be paid or may not be paid. 4. There is no statutory obligation on the part of the appellant to make payment of the bonus to the employees, much less, there is a public duty vested in this appellant. Once there is no public duty vested in the appellant, no writ of mandamus can be issued upon this appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1. Moreover, it has been stated by this writ petitioner that those who are paid bonus due to some clerical errors and in violation of the circulars issued by this appellant, such wrongly paid bonus shall be recovered. Thus, there was no need for the learned Single Judge to maintain equality in illegality. 5. So far as the amount already paid, it cannot be recovered from the respondent no.1 (original petitioner), because the said amount was never obtained by respondent no.1 by some mis-representation or by fraud. There was no error on the part of the respondent No.1. Hence, the amount paid to him, cannot be recovered by this appellant. Nonetheless, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to make payment of the bonus from the year 1993-94 onwards, cannot be said to be legal in the eyes of law, more particularly, when this appellant has already written letters that henceforth, no bonus shall be paid to the employees. 6. So far as recovery is concerned, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram – Vs – State of Haryana reported in 1995 supp(1) SCC 18, in paragraph 5, as under: - “5.Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It has been further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Col. B.J. Akkar (Retd.) – Vs – Government of India reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709 , in paragraphs 27 and 28, as under: - “27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director): (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. It has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others – Vs – State of Bihar and Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 , in paragraphs 57 and 58, as under: - “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , in paragraph 18 as under: - “18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , in paragraph 18 as under: - “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and the reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.3728 of 1999(R) order dated 12th February, 2009, so far as it relates to the direction given to the appellant to make payment of the bonus continuously for all the time to come. So far as recovery is concerned, the amount of the bonus already paid to the respondent No.1 (original petitioner) shall not be recovered. 11. This Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.