JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner praying therein the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writs, orders and/or directions, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent-authorities not to recover any amount from the family pension payable to the petitioner herein. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writs, orders and/or directions, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent-authorities to refund the amount already recovered from the saving bank account of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 38,980/-. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writs, orders and/or directions, restraining the respondent from making any recovery from the family pension account of the petitioner standing in her name at Allahabad Bank, Lalpur, Ranchi.” 3. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass. The husband of the petitioner was working in Road Construction Department as an Assistant and had retired on 01.02.1996 and he was getting his pension and other admissible benefits vide P.P.O. No. 226508. On 08.04.2001 the husband of the petitioner died and thereafter, the petitioner was getting family pension to the tune of Rs. 12,898/- till December, 2008 when the respondent-Bank suo motu without giving any notice or show cause started disbursing amount of Rs. 9,745/- towards the pension account. Due to the aforesaid reason petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information as to why her pension has been slashed down without assigning any reason. Pursuant to that vide letter dated 16.08.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ application) bank informed the petitioner that she was entitled for pension to the tune of Rs. 9,745/- only and due to inadvertence she was getting Rs. 12,898/- as such, a total sum of Rs. 2,19,193/- excess payment has been given to her and the same is being recovered. The said letter further indicates that Rs. 1,80,213/- has to be recovered in 51 installments at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month and Rs. 1713/- in the 52nd installment. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that no show cause or any short of notice was ever given to the petitioner before the process of recovery was started by the respondent-Bank. 4. 1,80,213/- has to be recovered in 51 installments at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month and Rs. 1713/- in the 52nd installment. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that no show cause or any short of notice was ever given to the petitioner before the process of recovery was started by the respondent-Bank. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5-The Accountant General Bihar and Jharkhand in which it has been stated that office of answering respondent has already authorized pensionary benefits as per proper sanction given by the department and same was authorized in favour of the writ petitioner and petitioner’s husband under PPO No. 226508. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that this answering respondent has not made any instruction regarding recovery of family pension of the petitioner. He further submits that it appears from the petition that the bank has detected some excess payment made to the petitioner which was recovered from petitioner which is related to the bank. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No. 3-The State of Jharkhand in which it has been categorically stated that the Road Construction Department Government of Jharkhand is not responsible for recovery of money from the family pension of the petitioner. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank in which it has been mentioned inter-alia that due to the excess amount paid to the petitioner the bank is duty bond to realise the same in accordance with law. It is pertinent to mention here that the bank has also filed three supplementary affidavits in support of its stand that the bank has not committed any error in recovering the amount from the petitioner. The respondent-Bank in the third supplementary affidavit has stated inter-alia that inadvertently excess family pension amounting to Rs. 2,19,193/- has been paid to the petitioner by the respondent-Bank during the span of period from February, 2003 to December, 2008 to which the petitioner was not entitled for. 7. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent-Bank is absolutely misconceived and non-est in the eye of law because no order has been passed by the State Government which would say that excessive amount has been paid to the petitioner herein. 7. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent-Bank is absolutely misconceived and non-est in the eye of law because no order has been passed by the State Government which would say that excessive amount has been paid to the petitioner herein. He further submits that the bank has also not followed the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no any show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner and the respondent-Bank suo motu and arbitrarily started recovering the amount on its own. He further submits that had the petitioner not asked the information under the Right to Information Act the respondent would have very cleverly recovered the entire amount which is alleged to have been illegally paid. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law in detail. 9. Per contra, Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that the petitioner was beneficiary of a mistake committed by the then employees of the respondent-Bank and on account of the said mistake; the petitioner was in receipt of monetary benefits beyond her right. She further submits that as per revised pension payment order dated 22.05.2000 (Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit) the family pension has been fixed for an amount of Rs. 5,828/- per month only up to 29.01.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,497/- only as per revised pension payment order. The copy of the aforesaid revised pension payment order dated 22.05.2000 was duly supplied to the husband of the petitioner for his information and record. However, inadvertently till December, 2008 the family pension was paid at the rate of Rs. 5,828/- instead of Rs. 3,497/-. She further submits that neither the petitioner brought about the irregularity of excess payment of pension during a period of more than 5 years before the bank official nor the petitioner has produced revised pension payment order to the bank while the petitioner was having the copy of the said order with her. She further contended that the petitioner was completely aware of the fact and did not reveal to the bank about such omission. She further contended that the petitioner was completely aware of the fact and did not reveal to the bank about such omission. She further contended that the Reserve Bank of India time and again has come up with various circulars issuing guidelines/instructions to all the agency banks with regard to disbursement of Government pension by agency/Banks. The Reserve Bank of India “Master Circular-Disbursement of Government Pension” being Circular No. Ref. Co. DGBA (NBS) No. 44/GA-64 (11-CVL) 90/91 dated 18.04.1991 empowers the bank to recover excess payment, if any made to any person. The relevant clause of the said Master Circular is quoted herein-below: (g) Recovery of Excess/wrong payment made to a pensioner 11. Details of the uniform procedure evolved for recovery of excess/wrong payments made to pensioners drawing pensions under the Scheme for payment of pension to Central/Civil/Defence/Railways pensioners through public sector banks, are given below: (a) As soon as the excess/wrong payment made to a pensioner comes to the notice of the paying branch, the branch should adjust the same against the amount standing to the credit to the pensioner’s account to the extent possible including lump-sum arrears payment. (b) If the entire amount of overpayment cannot be adjusted from the account, the pensioner may be asked to pay forthwith the balance amount of overpayment. (c) In case the pensioner expresses his inability to pay the amount, the same may be adjusted from the future pension payments to be made to the pensioners. For recovering the overpayment made to pensioner from his future pension payment in installments 1/3rd of net (pension + relief) payable each month may be recovered unless the pensioner concerned gives consent in writing to pay a higher installment amount. (d) If the overpayment cannot be recovered from the pensioner due to his death or discontinuance of pension, then action has to be taken as per the letter of undertaking given by the pensioner under the scheme. (e) The pensioner may also be advised about the details of over payment/wrong payment and mode of its recovery. She further submits that all the offices and branches of the answering bank vide instruction circular no. (e) The pensioner may also be advised about the details of over payment/wrong payment and mode of its recovery. She further submits that all the offices and branches of the answering bank vide instruction circular no. GA/2004-05/39 dated 28.03.2005 has been informed by the office of the Principal Controller Defence Accounts, Pension [hereinafter referred to as PCDA(P)] that in case any excess/wrong payment of pension has been made by any branch, that amount is to be recovered as per the guideline. She further contended that apart from the above documents/circulars empowering the answering bank to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner, the answering bank is also bringing on record one application/letter being No. PEN-XI-6017 dated 24.01.1996 by the office of the Accountant General (A&E) Bihar, Patna addressed to the treasury office, Ranchi wherein page no. 2 of the said document, it has been tick marked the option adopted by the pensioner that “he should appear before the treasury office, Ranchi to receive payment. If however, he wishes to be exempted from appearing in person to receive his portion of P.P.O. and draw his pension through his authorized agent to that effect to the treasury office through the agent bank, who should have executed a bond to indemnity to refund the over payment. In the latter case, the pension payment order will be sent to him through the agent.” Further, it has been mentioned in pension payment order (Annexure-C) itself that payment under this order is to be made only to the pensioner in person in following exception. “To any person resident in India who draws his pension through an agent who executed a bond to refund over payment subject to the condition that the latter produces at least once a year life certificate by persons mentioned in clause C.” She further submits that from the aforesaid documents, it is evident that the bank has a right to adjust excess payment made to the petitioner. She further referred to the letter dated 28.11.2010 issued by the then Chief Manager addressed to Deputy General Manager, Zonal Ranchi pursuant to RTI application made by the petitioner, stating therein about the right to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner. 10. She further referred to the letter dated 28.11.2010 issued by the then Chief Manager addressed to Deputy General Manager, Zonal Ranchi pursuant to RTI application made by the petitioner, stating therein about the right to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 417 , where at para-14 it has been held that: 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “taxpayers’ money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. 11. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in the case of Laxmi Bai Solanki vs. C.P.P.C. and Others, (2012) 5 MPHT 364 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as follows: “7. It is not in dispute that at no point of time, there was any order passed by the State Government to fix the petitioner’s pension at the rate at which it was paid by the respondent No. 1 and 2 Bank after 09.01.2008. It is not in dispute that at no point of time, there was any order passed by the State Government to fix the petitioner’s pension at the rate at which it was paid by the respondent No. 1 and 2 Bank after 09.01.2008. In the circumstances, if the respondent-bank has paid the excess amount of family pension than the amount payable to the appellant/writ petitioner as per the Pension Payment Order, the appellant cannot be allowed to get the benefit of the said mistaken excess payment made by the Bank. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma (supra) has got no application to the facts of present case. The applicant/writ petitioner cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the mistake occurred on the part of the respondent bank. Thus, the recovery of the excess payment proposed to be made by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 Bank cannot be said to be illegal. 8. As a result, we decline interference into the order passed by the learned Single Bench. 9. The writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” 12. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 and submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in that case has also considered the judgment passed in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and held that the principle enumerated in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is not applicable in the facts of that case. Paragraph Nos. 3 and 11 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “3. The respondent furnished an undertaking and was granted he revised pay scale and selection grade of Rs 14,300-400-18,000-300. While opting for the revised pay scale, the respondent undertook to refund any excess payment if it was so detected and demanded subsequently. The revised pay scale in the selection grade was allowed to the respondent on 7-1-2002. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has concluded her argument by submitting that each and every case has to be looked into with their own facts and circumstances and no formula can be made that no amount can be recovered from the family pension. In the instant case, admittedly due to inadvertence, the family pension of the petitioner could not be reduced w.e.f. February, 2003 and as a result thereof excess payment have been made to the petitioner and there is no illegality in recovering the same inasmuch as non-recovery of the amount will amount to unlawful enrichment. She further submits that notice was not required to be given to the widow of original pensioner in view of the RBI Circular and the respondent-Bank has not committed any error in recovering the amount in installments without informing the petitioner. 14. In reply to the aforesaid contention of the respondent-Bank, Mr. Saurav Arun learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons cannot be supplemented by subsequent affidavits and the respondent-Bank had supplemented their stand by filing affidavits. As a matter of fact initially they did not take the stand about any RBI notifications; however, in course of proceeding of this writ application they have filed several affidavits and supplemented the reasons for their unjust action. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Mohindhr Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405 wherein at para-8 the law has been laid as under:- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” 15. On the question of undertaking, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government and its agencies and instrumentalities constitute the largest employer of the country and any clause which is opposed to the public policy and being opposed to public policy is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. In this regard he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, (1986) 3 SCC 156 wherein para-101, the law has been laid down as under: “101. It was, however, submitted on behalf of the appellants that this was a contract entered into by the Corporation like any other contract entered into by it in the course of its trading activities and the court, therefore, ought not to interfere with it. It is not possible for us to equate employees with goods which can be bought and sold. It is equally not possible for us to equate a contract of employment with a mercantile transaction between two businessmen and much less to do so when the contract of employment is between a powerful employer and a weak employee.” 16. Replying on the arguments w.r.t. the RBI circular, learned counsel submits that they are binding on the banks, but not on the parties and any circular cannot override the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Replying on the arguments w.r.t. the RBI circular, learned counsel submits that they are binding on the banks, but not on the parties and any circular cannot override the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In this regard he relied upon the judgment in the case of CCE vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1 , wherein at para-4, 6 and 7 the law has been laid down as under: “4. The three-Judge Bench agreed with the view expressed in Kalyani case and observed that the view about invalidation was sufficient to clarify the observations in para-11 of Dhiren Chemical case. On taking note of the fact that Dhiren Chemical case was decided by a Bench of five Judges it was felt appropriate that a Bench of similar strength should clarify the position. That is why reference was made. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand submitted that once the circular has been issued it is binding on the Revenue Authorities and even if it runs counter to the decision of this Court, the Revenue Authorities cannot say that they are not bound by it. The circulars issued by the Board are not binding on the assessee but are binding on the Revenue Authorities. It was submitted that once the Board issues a circular, the Revenue Authorities cannot take advantage of a decision of the Supreme Court. The consequences of issuing a circular are that the authorities cannot act contrary to the circular. Once the circular is brought to the notice of the Court, the challenge by the Revenue should be turned out and the Revenue cannot lodge an appeal taking the ground which is contrary to the circular. 7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. It is for the court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law.” 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that the husband of the petitioner retired on 01.02.1996 and thereafter, his pension was settled and he was getting pension vide P.P.O. No. 226508 up till 08.04.2001, when he died. It further transpires that the Accountant General Bihar vide its letter dated 27.03.1998 had fixed the pension of the husband of the petitioner as well as family pension of the petitioner and vide letter dated 22.05.2000 the respondent- Accountant General has revised the pension and as per the pension payment orders the family pension of the petitioner was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 3,497/- per month w.e.f. 29.01.2003, but it was wrongly paid at the rate of Rs. 5,828/- per month and due to this very reason excess amount has been paid to the petitioner and as per the bank, they are duty bound to recover the amount so paid. It also appears from record that no show cause notice or even information was ever given to the petitioner who is a widow; informing her about the whole fact. As a matter of fact, the petitioner could know about the deduction only when an application was made under the R.T.I. Act, she came to know that the family pension of the petitioner had been reduced due to recovery. Admittedly, the law laid down in the case Rafiq Mashi (supra), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down the guidelines in para-18, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law. Para 18 and 19 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payment have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Para 18 and 19 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payment 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, summaries 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 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’s 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 recover.” 19. We are informed by the learned counsel representing the appellant-State of Punjab, that all the cases in this bunch of appeals, would undisputedly fall within the first four categories delineated hereinabove. In the appeals referred to above, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (quashing the order of recovery), shall be deemed to have been upheld, for the reasons recorded above.” 18. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has referred to the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated 17.03.2016 wherein excess payment made to the pensioner are recoverable from them. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has also referred to the letter of undertaking given by the petitioner’s husband wherein it has been undertaken to refund or make good to the bank any amount to which he is not entitled or any excess amount which has been credited in the pension account over which she would be entitled. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has also referred to the letter of undertaking given by the petitioner’s husband wherein it has been undertaken to refund or make good to the bank any amount to which he is not entitled or any excess amount which has been credited in the pension account over which she would be entitled. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the Bank is justified in recovering the excess amount of pension paid to the petitioner herein. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank has also referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed to make recovery of the excess amount paid to an employee on account of wrong fixation of revised pay-scale, since from the said employee an undertaking was taken to the effect that in case any excess payment was found to have been made subsequently, he would refund the same. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that since the officer to whom excess payment was made in the first instance, was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess, would be required to be refunded as the officer had furnished an undertaking, while opting for the revised pay-scale, hence he was bound by the said undertaking. In such view of the matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court had said that the law enunciated in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masiah (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 is not applicable in the case under consideration. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Bank, as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) is distinguishable inasmuch as firstly the recovery sought to be made in the said case was regarding excess salary paid to the officer on account of revised pay-scale whereas the present case pertains to excess payment of family pension not only ranging over a period of few months but ranging over a period more than 5 years, allegedly made solely on account of latches and fault on the part of the respondent-Bank without there being any misrepresentation or fraud having been committed on the part of the petitioner herein. Further, the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) was not a case of retirement or grant of excess family pension but the officer in the said case had been compulsorily retired whereas in the present case the petitioner is the widow of the deceased employee/pensioner. Much before passing of the judgment in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Paras Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 314 , has already held that in the case of illiterate persons, not knowing the implications of giving an undertaking and in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation attributable to the employee in question, a lenient view should be taken and the amount already paid by the State authorities in excess should not be recovered. In this regard paragraph no. 2 to 6 of the said judgment rendered in the case of Paras Nath Singh are reproduced herein-below:- “2. On 15-4-1995, the appellant was given provisional first time-bound promotion with effect from 13-6-1984. After about 10 years, more precisely on 19-9-2005, the first time-bound promotion granted to the appellant was cancelled. In view of such cancellation of promotion, direction was issued by the State/respondent to recover Rs. 1,01,529.50/- from the salary of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order directing recovery, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna contending that since the time bound promotion given to him was at the fag end of his employment and that the appellant, once having worked in the time bound promotional post, recovery against him was not justified. 3. The writ petition, however, was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court and affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in a letters patent appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this special leave petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. 3. The writ petition, however, was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court and affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in a letters patent appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this special leave petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the State authorities had allowed the appellant to work for about 10 years and paid the salary at the enhanced rate, in which the appellant had no role to play except that he had given an undertaking to the authorities that in the event his first time bound promotion was cancelled, in that case, he would be bound to refund the same. 5. Having considered the fact that the appellant was only a Class IV employee in the State of Bihar and almost an illiterate person and did not know the implications of giving such undertaking and in the absence of any fraud and misrepresentation attributed to the appellant and the amount being not so excessive, in particular Rs. 1,01,529.50/- out of which certain amount has already been recovered from the salary of the appellant by the State authorities, we are of the view that a lenient view should be taken and the amount already paid by the State authorities to the appellant shall not be recovered. However, whatever amount that has already been recovered, shall not be paid back to the appellant. 6. In view of the above, the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant stands allowed. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.” 19. Further, circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the court to direct that the circular should be given effect to as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries (supra). 20. 20. In my considered opinion, since the petitioner’s husband retired as an “Assistant” and the recovery is sought from the family pension, the judgment rendered by three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) fully covers the present case where it has been held that no recovery should be made from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery and also not to recover from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class IV service (or Group and Group D service). 21. In view of cumulative facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this writ application allowed. It is further directed that respondent-Bank would refund the entire amount to the petitioner which has been recovered within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date recovery till the date of refund.