JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4661 of 2010 by which the decision taken by the appellant-Bank for recovery of the amount of Rs. 2,19,193/- which according to the appellant-Bank has been paid to the respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner, for the period from February, 2003 till December, 2008 to which the writ petitioner, the respondent no. 1 herein, was not entitled for. 2. The facts of the case which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under: It is the case of the writ petitioner that her husband while working as Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department had opted for getting pension from the appellant-Bank. The writ petitioner, according to the appellant-Bank has been paid excess amount of Rs.2,19,193/- for the period from February, 2003 till December, 2008 which was not according to her entitlement and as such, the order was communicated to the writ petitioner for recovery of the said amount. The respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has challenged the same by filing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4661 of 2010. The learned Single Judge after putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , has allowed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity since while putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra), the very fact of the case which was bearing upon the decision taken by the appellant-Bank of making recovery from the writ petitioner has not been appreciated in right perspective. 4. It has been contended by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) wherein in the context of the master and employee relationship that judgment was passed. 4. It has been contended by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) wherein in the context of the master and employee relationship that judgment was passed. But, herein, the appellant-Bank was having no master employee relationship with the writ petitioner rather the Bank has acted only as an agent on the option being rendered for the family pension and the writ petitioner, in course thereof, has been paid excess amount to her entitlement, therefore, the decision has been taken by the appellant on the basis of the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India issued on 17.03.2016 as also by taking into consideration the undertaking furnished by the husband of the writ petitioner wherein it has been undertaken that if any amount to which he is not entitled to or any excess amount if which will be credited, he would not be entitled. Learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid premise has submitted that the impugned judgment requires interference. 5. This Court while hearing the appeal has issued notice upon the respondent no. 1 as would appear from the order dated 12.09.2022 both under registered cover with A/D as also by ordinary process. The steps were taken. The office note dated 17.03.2023 reflects on the basis of the service report received that ‘notice hanged on the front door’ which has been kept at Flag-R. The due acknowledgement receipt has also been received which has been kept at Flag-S. 6. This Court had perused the office note and considering the fact that the notice was not personally received by the party concerned, therefore, again vide order dated 21.03.2023 had directed the appellant to take steps for fresh service of notice upon the respondent no. 1 to be served through the Argora Police Station. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi was directed to ensure service of notice upon the respondent no. 1. For ready reference, the order dated 21.03.2023 is being reproduced as under: “It appears from order dated 12.09.2022 that notice was issued upon respondent no. 1 both under registered post with A/D and ordinary process. As per office note dated 17.03.2023 the service report received with a report that notice hanged on the front door. 1. For ready reference, the order dated 21.03.2023 is being reproduced as under: “It appears from order dated 12.09.2022 that notice was issued upon respondent no. 1 both under registered post with A/D and ordinary process. As per office note dated 17.03.2023 the service report received with a report that notice hanged on the front door. It further appears that signed A/D is received which is being acknowledged by one Anil Kumar, kept at Flag ‘S’. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that fresh notice is required to be sent. Accordingly, let fresh notice be served upon respondent no. 1 through Argora Police Station. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi shall ensure service of notice upon respondent no. 1. Office is to do the needful. List this case on 11.04.2023.” 7. The steps were taken for service of notice through the officer in-charge of the concerned police station and as per the office note dated 06.04.2023, it appears that the notice was refused to be accepted by the son of the writ petitioner and was informed that the writ petitioner is residing in Delhi. The aforesaid service report has been kept at Flag-A. The matter was taken into consideration on 11.04.2023 and on that date, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the SSP, Ranchi after serving copy of the same upon the learned counsel for the appellant wherein it was stated that the son of the respondent no. 1, namely, Anil Kumar was found at the same address. It has been informed that the respondent no. 1, namely, Kiran Srivastava is living in Delhi but denied to give full address of respondent no. 1. He has also denied to receive the said notice dated 26.03.2023 as is evident from the report contained in Memo No. 7676/23 dated 05.04.2023 as appended as Annexure-A and B. This Court, therefore, had directed the appellant to take fresh steps by way of substituted service, i.e. by way of paper publication in the local newspaper at Ranchi and since the Respondent No. 1 is residing in Delhi, steps for publication of it has also been directed to be taken in the daily newspaper of Delhi Edition. For ready reference, the said order is being reproduced as under: “This Court, while hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bank, has issued notice upon the Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.09.2022. Since the notice was hanged on the front door, therefore, the appellant was again directed to take fresh steps for service of notice vide order dated 21.03.2023 to be served through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. The steps for service of notice as per order dated 21.03.2023 has been taken. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi in the Court today after serving a copy of the same upon the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The same has been taken on record. The affidavit filed on behalf of Senior Superintendent of Police indicates that none was found at the address provided, i.e. 64-D, Road No. 1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi rather, his son namely Sri Anil Kumar was found at the same 2 address. It has been informed that Respondent No. 1, Kiran Srivastava, his mother, is living in Delhi but denied to give full address of Respondent No. 1. He also denied to receive the said notice dated 26.03.2023 as is evident from the report contained in Memo No. 7676/23 dated 05.04.2023 as appended as Annexure-A and B. It further appears from a document contained in the record as Flag-A wherefrom it is evident that learned State counsel had also requested the son of Respondent No. 1 over his mobile number to accept the notice or apprise the present address of Respondent No. 1, namely, Kiran Srivastava but the said request was denied. In view thereof, let fresh steps be taken for substituted service by way of paper publication in the local newspaper at Ranchi and since the Respondent No. 1 is residing in Delhi, let publication be also made in the daily newspaper of Delhi Edition. The requisites etc. be filed within one week. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file due affidavit enclosing therein the paper publication within two weeks. Office is directed to do the needful.” 8. The requisites etc. be filed within one week. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file due affidavit enclosing therein the paper publication within two weeks. Office is directed to do the needful.” 8. The appellant has field an affidavit on 16.05.2023 wherein the notice publication in the four daily newspapers have been appended thereto, one in the daily newspaper, namely ‘Prabhat Khabar’ dated 22.04.2023 of Ranchi Edition and another in English daily newspaper, i.e. ‘The Times of India’ of Ranchi Edition dated 22.04.2023. The notice has also been published in daily newspaper of ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ of Hindi Edition of Delhi Edition as also in ‘The Economics Times’ dated 22.04.2023. This Court, on perusal of the paper publication, is of the view that the service will be deemed to have been completed, therefore, is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 10. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the husband of the writ petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department of the erstwhile State of Bihar and superannuated after attaining the normal age of superannuation. The pension was fixed and as per option of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner, the pension was being disbursed in his favour through the Allahabad Bank of its Circular Road Ranchi Branch (now after merger, it is Indian Bank). After demise of the husband of the writ petitioner, the family pension was fixed and the same was being disbursed from the same Bank and in course thereof, a sum of Rs.2,19,193/- has been paid which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is excess to her entitlement. The appellant-Bank in pursuance to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and taking into consideration the undertaking furnished by the husband of the writ petitioner at the time of opting the pension for its disbursement has passed an order of recovery dated 16.08.2010. The appellant-Bank in pursuance to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and taking into consideration the undertaking furnished by the husband of the writ petitioner at the time of opting the pension for its disbursement has passed an order of recovery dated 16.08.2010. The aforesaid order has been challenged by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4661 of 2010 wherein the ground was taken that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra), there cannot be any recovery. The learned Single Judge has agreed with the aforesaid submission and has quashed the order dated 16.08.2010 with a direction upon the appellant-Bank to refund the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 7% per annum, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 11. The question has been raised regarding the applicability of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) since the judgment which has been relied basis upon which the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2020 has been passed by the learned Single Judge, i.e. the judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since the Bank being an agent cannot be said to have any employer and employee relationship and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) strictly is in the pretext of having the relationship of employer and employee. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that considering the facts of the case the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Bai Solanki vs. CPPC (Centralised Pension Processing Centre) and Others, (2012) 4 MPLJ 132 will be applicable wherein exactly the similar situation fell for consideration, i.e. the issue with respect to family pension. But, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the applicability of the judgment in the facts and circumstances governing the case. 13. But, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the applicability of the judgment in the facts and circumstances governing the case. 13. This Court on the basis of the aforesaid submission, is required to consider as to (i) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) will be applicable; (ii) whether the action of the appellant-Bank in making recovery in pursuance of the RBI Circular dated 17.03.2016 in a case where the amount of family pension has been disbursed by the Bank in the capacity of disbursing agent can be said to be improper. Both the issues since are linked together, therefore, the same are being considered together. 14. This Court, in order to scrutinize the aforesaid judgment, deems it fit and proper to refer the factual aspect first of the judgment rendered in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra). The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) reflects that the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court, i.e. in the case of Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 was that there cannot be any recovery if there is no misrepresentation on the part of the concerned employee but subsequent thereto, the conflicting view has come in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the excess payment if made exceeding the entitlement of the concerned employee is required to be recovered since the said amount is tax payer’s money. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the conflicting view has referred the matter laying down the law before the Larger Bench but the Larger Bench instead of deciding the said issue has again referred the same to the Division Bench and in that pretext, the judgment of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) has been rendered. 15. 15. The facts of the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) is that there the excess payment has been said not to be recovered and, in that view, law has been propounded as under para-18 wherein five categories have been given, i.e. in which circumstances, the recovery is to be made. For ready reference, the said paragraph is being reproduced 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.” 16. (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.” 16. The background of propounding the aforesaid guideline is in the pretext of the fact that it was the decision of recovery by the employer as would appear from the very first paragraph of the judgment wherein the mistake was crept up while fixing the salary of an employee consequent upon the upward revision of pay scale, the law has been laid down that if the fault has been committed by the employer, there cannot be any recovery but subject also to the condition which is relevant at Para-18(v) wherein it has been laid down that 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. The aforesaid guideline, therefore, stipulates that guideline no. 18(i) - (iv) there cannot be any recovery but apart from that category, the decision is required to be taken by the Court that if the Court comes to the conclusion of making equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover then in such circumstances, the recovery can also be made. Meaning thereby, that in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) there is no absolute bar in making recovery if the guideline as contained in paragraph-18(v) is to be considered. But, that consideration is apart from the condition no. 18(i) - (iv). 17. The learned Single Judge has also referred on being pointed out, the reliance of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 . The reliance of the aforesaid judgment has been placed by the Bank on the basis of the fact that the undertaking was furnished by the husband of the writ petitioner for making recovery of the amount if the amount has been paid excess to the entitlement. 18. The reliance of the aforesaid judgment has been placed by the Bank on the basis of the fact that the undertaking was furnished by the husband of the writ petitioner for making recovery of the amount if the amount has been paid excess to the entitlement. 18. This Court also deems it fit and proper to consider the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh (supra) wherefrom it is evident that it is also the case of the wrong fixation of revised pay scale. The pay scale is to be fixed by the employer, however, while fixing the pay scale, an undertaking was recorded of the concerned employee that in case of excess payment, the same is to be recovered. The matter crept up that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) there cannot be any recovery if there is any mistake on the part of the concerned employer. But, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not accepted the aforesaid submission and by taking into consideration that undertaking has been furnished by the concerned employee and in that view of the matter, the distinction has been carved out regarding the applicability of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) that in a case where undertaking has been furnished by the concerned employee, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) will not be applicable. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph(s) of the judgment rendered in Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), read as under: “3. The respondent furnished an undertaking and was granted the 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. 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. He is bound by the undertaking.” 19. This Court after going through the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) and in Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh (supra) has found therefrom that both the judgments were in the context of the employer and employee relationship. In both the judgments, it is the employer who has taken decision for fixation of pay and when it was found to have wrongly fixed, then the decision of recovery was taken. 20. This Court now coming to the facts of the case has found that herein the appellant has acted as an agent on the option offered by the husband of the writ petitioner for disbursement of the pension and subsequent to his death, the family pension was also been disbursed by the appellant-Bank in favour of the writ petitioner, the widow of the deceased employee. 21. It appears from the impugned judgment that although the learned Single Judge has referred the judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Bai Solanki vs. CPPC (Centralised Pension Processing Centre) and Others (supra) but it appears that the learned Single Judge has not considered its applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case rather the finding has been recorded as under para-19 that in case of any circular and instructions which even though binds the parties but that cannot be allowed to prevail upon the order passed by the Supreme Court or High Court by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CCE vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1 . 22. 22. This Court has also perused the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CCE vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries (supra) wherein it appears that the consideration was there that what would be the effect of the circular even if it runs counter to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in that pretext, the law has been laid down that the circular 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. The aforesaid judgment, therefore, has reiterated the law that once the law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the High Court, the circular will have no effect rather it is the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India will have the binding effect so as also the order/judgment passed by the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But herein, the fact of the case is quite different since reliance has only been placed upon by the appellant regarding the circular dated 17.03.2016 issued by the Reserve Bank of India wherein the excess payment made to the pensioner has been made to be recoverable. 23. The aforesaid circular of the Reserve Bank of India has not been taken into consideration while applying the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CCE vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries (supra) since it was not the case of the writ petitioner that the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 17.03.2016 has ever been quashed by any Constitutional Court. 24. 24. It appears that the learned Single Judge has put reliance upon the judgment rendered in CCE vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries (supra) on the pretext that the ratio had been laid down as in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) that there cannot be any recovery and in that view of the matter, the view has been expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that the circular dated 17.03.2016 cannot have over-riding effect upon the judgment rendered in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra). But, while doing so, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the very fact of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra). 25. It is settled position of law that there cannot be any universal applicability of the judgment rather its applicability is to be tested on the facts and circumstances governing the case as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 75 , paragraph 47 of which reads hereunder as: “47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.” 26. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid premise, is not proceeding to examine the relevance of the judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Bai Solanki vs. CPPC (Centralised Pension Processing Centre) and Others (supra) wherein the law has been laid down that what is the duty of the Bank if in case the excess payment has been made. Although, the law is settled that the judgment rendered by another High Court is not binding but it has got persuasive value and if the judgment is taken note and if the High Court is not putting reliance upon the same, the reason is to be assigned for the same. Although, the law is settled that the judgment rendered by another High Court is not binding but it has got persuasive value and if the judgment is taken note and if the High Court is not putting reliance upon the same, the reason is to be assigned for the same. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Pradip J. Mehta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, (2008) 14 SCC 283 , wherein at paragraph 23, it has been held which reads as under: “23. Although, the judgments referred to above were cited at the Bar in the High Court, which were taken note of by the learned Judges of the Bench of the High Court, but without either recording its agreement or dissent, it answered the two questions referred to it in favour of the Revenue. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that the High Court should, especially in the event of its contra view or dissent, have discussed the aforesaid judgments of the different High Courts and recorded its own reasons for its contra view. We quite see the fact that the judgments given by a High Court are not binding on the other High Court(s), but all the same, they have persuasive value. Another High Court would be within its right to differ with the view taken by the other High Courts but, in all fairness, the High Court should record its dissent with reasons therefor. The judgment of the other High Courts, though not binding, have persuasive value which should be taken note of and dissented from by recording its own reasons.” Considering the facts of the instant case and the legal proposition as above, the judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Bai Solanki vs. CPPC (Centralised Pension Processing Centre) and Others (supra) is having persuasive value in the facts and circumstances of the instant case where the fact of the case is exactly similar to the present case as would be evident from the background of the facts. For ready reference the same is being referred here under as: The fact of the aforesaid case is that the appellant/writ petitioner challenged the recovery of excess payment of Rs. 87,239/- sought to be made by respondents No. 1 and 2 Bank. For ready reference the same is being referred here under as: The fact of the aforesaid case is that the appellant/writ petitioner challenged the recovery of excess payment of Rs. 87,239/- sought to be made by respondents No. 1 and 2 Bank. The contention of the writ petitioner before the writ Court was that the excess payment was made to her was not on account of any fault or fraud on her part, and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , the recovery, after retirement, cannot be ordered. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the relationship between the writ petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 is not of the employer and the employee, but the relationship is of banker and the customer, and therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma (supra) is not applicable. While negating the claim of the said appellant/writ petitioner the Division of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, has observed that 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. It has also been observed that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others (supra) has got no application to the facts of the said case and the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be allowed to take benefit of mistake occurred on the part of the respondent-Bank. Thus, the recovery of the excess payment proposed to be made by respondents No. 1 and 2- Bank cannot be said to be illegal. 27. Thus, the recovery of the excess payment proposed to be made by respondents No. 1 and 2- Bank cannot be said to be illegal. 27. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the very basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) is based upon the decision taken by the employer employee and here the basis of making application of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) is not available rather the Bank being an agent was disbursing the amount pertaining to family pension in favour of the writ petitioner and in course thereof, excess payment exceeding her entitlement, was paid. 28. The Bank is to be guided by the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India being the Controller of the Bank wherefrom a circular was issued on 17.03.2016 for recovery of the excess payment basis upon which an undertaking was also furnished for recovery and in that view of the matter, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) has been applied in the facts and circumstances of the case, which according to our considered view, will not be applicable. Since the case of the writ petitioner is on the basis of undertaking by her husband, as such, the Bank being an agent is required to recover the said amount in pursuance of the circular dated 17.03.2016 as also based upon the undertaking of her husband. Accordingly, both the issues are answered in favour of the appellant-Bank. 29. The learned Single Judge since has not considered the aforesaid fact and by considering the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CCE vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries (supra), which has got no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we are of the view that the impugned judgment requires interference. 30. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 31. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 32. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.