IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5758 of 2010 1. The Union of India, Department of Posts through Mahesh Chand Deopa S/o Kalyan Chand, the Superintendent of RMS 'U' Division Muzaffarpur, P.S - Town P.S - Muzaffarpur, District - Muzaffarpur. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, New Delhi cum D.G. Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Post Master General, North Bihar Region, Muzaffarpur………………………………………Respondents/petitioner. Versus 1. Arun Kumar Singh S/o Sri Parshuram Singh T.S. Casual Labour H.R.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 2. Ashok Kumar Singh S/o Sri Ramudgar Singh, T.S. Generator Operator S.M.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Ram Kripal Singh, T.S. Casual Labour H.R.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. Krishna Ranjan Singh, S/o Sri Rama Prasad Singh, T.S. Casual Labour H.R.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. Ram Krishna Giri, S/o Late Gandhar Giri, T.S. Casual Labour H.R.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 6. Ram Prakash Bhagta, S/o Late Ram Rup Bhagta, T.S. Casual Labour H.R.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 7. Dinesh Mahto S/o Fekan Mahto, T.S. Casual Labour H.R.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 8. Braj Bihari Prasad, S/O Late Braj Shankar Prasad, T.S. Casual Labour H.R.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, M uzaffarpur. 9. Dhurandhar Prasad, S/o Late Ganga Prasad, T.S. Generator Operator S.M.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 10. Jairam Pandey S/o Late Ramdas Pandey, S.M.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 11. Sunil Kumar, S/o Late Maheshwar Narayan Singh, T.S. Generator Operator S.M.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 12. Jagannath Rai, S/o Sri Bhagwan Rai, T.S. Casual Labour H.R.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur. 13. Sambhu Mahto S/o Mahendra Mahto, T.S. Casual Labour H.R.O. R.M.S. 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur…………….Applicants/Respondents. For the Union of India : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh (C.G.C.) For the Respondents 1 to 13 : Mr. M.P.Dixit ----------- 4. 13.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order dated 28.8.2009, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has allowed O.A. No. 2 816 of 2003 preferred by the respondents who are employees of postal department and quashed the order dated 28.4.2004 issued by the office of the Superintendent of R.M.S. ‘U’ Division, Muzaffarpur directing for recovery of bonus paid to the respondents as ad-hoc bonus for the period 1995-96 to 1998-99. A perusal of order shows that the bonus was paid at par with that paid to temporary Group-‘D’ employees. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal contained in Annexure-2 shows that the Tribunal has not entered into the issue whether the applicants were entitled to bonus at the rate admissible to Group-‘D’ employees and has granted the relief by following judgments of the Supreme Court and Madras Bench of the Tribunal which did not favour for recovery of such bonus already paid to the employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no good reason why the order for recovery should not be implemented if the bonus was wrongly paid at a wrong rate. In reply learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 29.1.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9288/2005. In that case the Union of India was the petitioner and the respondents included All India Postal Employees Union Postman & Group-D Bihar Circle, Patna. The same issue was considered by the Division Bench and decided against the petitioners. 3 On merits also this Court held that grant of bonus in question in view of 1992 Scheme to employees who had completed three years of continuous service after grant of temporary status at par with Group-‘D’ employees was in accordance with law and the Scheme which entitled them to bonus in question. On the issue of recovery also the decision of Division Bench is against the petitioners on the basis of several judgments on the ground that grant of bonus was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation. We do not find any good reason to take a contrary view to the judgment of this Court noticed earlier. The Apex Court has laid down the law relating to such recovery in clear terms that such controversy relates to equity and the court concerned has to look into all the relevant circumstances including status of the employees and the hardship which may be faced by them on account of order of recovery passed after long years. Following such clear view of the Apex Court, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)