IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.994 of 2007 PARAS KUMAR JHA S/o late Deo Chandra Jha, Senior Manager, Nalanda Gramin Bank, H.O. Biharsharif Presently Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna, resident of Vasant Bihar Colony Patna-14. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA represented through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division, New Delhi). 2. The General Manager, National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development, Central Office, Mumbai. 3. The Assistant General Manager, PNB (R.R.B. Cell) Priority Sector, Lead Bank Division, 5 Sansad Marg New Delhi-1. 4. The Board of Directors, Nalanda Gramin Bank represented through the Chairman, Nalanda Gramin Bank, Biharsharif (Nalanda). 5. Nalanda Gramin Bank H.O. Biharsharif represented through the Chairman, Nalanda Gramin Bank Biharsharif (Nalanda). 6. The Senior Manager, Administration, Personnel Nalanda Gramin Bank Biharsharif (Nalanda). 7. The Chairman Nalanda Gramin Bank Biharsharif Nalanda. 8. The Senior Manager, Accounts Nalanda Gramin Bank, Biharsharif, (Nalanda). 9. Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank represented through the Chairman, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna. ………………… 5 11.07.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.9.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10068 of 2005, wherein the appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent–Bank who has sought recovery of a sum of Rs.49,188=92 paise on the ground that the appellant was wrongly paid excess amount in applying the benefit of increment under switch over facility. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the writ petitioner, appellant herein is that such action of the respondent-Bank is in violation of principles of natural justice as no prior notice was issued to the appellant before taking such 2 action which is mandatory in view of law laid down in the case of ‘Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India’ reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has rejected the contention of the appellant stating that no ground is given by the writ petitioner, appellant herein to retain such benefit which has been granted to him by mistake and also recorded the contention raised by the counsel for the Bank that such benefit was to be made available to the appellant from 16.12.2002, but under a mistake the employees in question were given the aforesaid facility from 20.4.1999. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed. It has been contented by learned counsel for the appellant that when the scheme of Switch over policy is coming and the same was accepted by the Bank and in view of such scheme the appellant was given certain benefits the same cannot be withdrawn without giving notice to him and also without following the principles of natural justice. We had the occasion to go through the entire material from which it appears that the said scheme was coming into effect from 16.12.2002 but the respondent-Bank by mistake has extended the benefits of such scheme to the employees with effect from 20.4.1999. But however we are not dwelling upon such material as the main issue before the learned Single Judge and also before us is with regard to grant of such benefit with effect from 20.4.1999 as also order of recovery of a sum of 3 Rs.49,188=92 paise which was issued without prior notice to the appellant as also without following the principles of natural justice in view of law laid down by the Apex Court as stated above. We are of the opinion that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shayam Babu Verma (Supra) the respondent-Bank cannot order for recovery of the amount which was given to the person concerned by mistake without following the principles of natural justice. Under the above circumstances, liberty is granted to the respondent-Bank to issue notice to the appellant and also the effected persons on the point of recovery as also the benefit extended to them without any authority of law and on receipt of explanation from the appellant and also from the concerned persons the respondent-Bank may take any appropriate action against the appellant and also against other effected persons. With the above modification in the order of the learned Single Judge the L.P.A. stands disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)