JUDGMENT : Satya Brata Sanyal, J. This writ application is by All India Central Bank Officers Federation as well as by other Officers Association and their office bearers and some employees of the Central Bank for quashing Regulation Nos. 4 to 12, 19 to 23, 25, 32 and 41 of Central Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations 1979 made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 read with sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and circular No. CO/PRS/POL/80/1 dated 1.1.80 contained in Annexures 5, 5(i), 5(ii) and 5(iii) issued by respondent no. 3 pursuant to Regulation No. 12 of the aforesaid Service Regulations to each officer of the Bank and a writ in the nature of mandamus asking the respondents to forbear from altering or affecting the existing conditions of service, that is, pay scale, allowance perquisites. 2. Petitioners 3, 5 to 8, 10 and 11 were employed by the erstwhile Central Bank of India Ltd., prior to its nationatisation under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, hereinafter to be referred to as "the Nationalised Bank". Petitioners 4 and 9 are the officers of respondent no. 1 appointed after the nationalisation. The Central Bank along with 13 other major private sector Banking Companies were nationalised on the 31st March 1970. It is said that after nationalisation the Central Bank became an authority and/or agency and/or instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also a statutory authority. The services of the petitioners stood transferred on the commencement of the Nationalised Act and the petitioners aforesaid became officers and employees of the Nationalised Bank and continued to hold their offices on the same terms and conditions and the same rights as to pension, gratuity and other terms and renditions as were admissible before the nationalisation of the Bank. It is said that they are entitled to continue to hold their offices on the same terms and conditions unless and until the same are duly altered by respondent no. 1 as envisaged under section 12 (2) of the Nationalised Act. It is said that the services of other employees and workmen have been altered by two National Industrial Tribunal Awards, namely, Shastri Award and Desai Award, and three bipartite settlements. 3. 1 as envisaged under section 12 (2) of the Nationalised Act. It is said that the services of other employees and workmen have been altered by two National Industrial Tribunal Awards, namely, Shastri Award and Desai Award, and three bipartite settlements. 3. Some time in July 1973 the Union of India in the Ministry of Finance by a resolution constituted a committee consisting of Prof. V.R. Pillai, Shri K.P.O. Prabhu, Shd S.M. Joshi, Shri J.M. Lalvani and Shri P. Rajamani for the purpose of standardisation of scales of pay and the principles governing the structure of pay scales of officers of Nationalised Banks and suggest such changes as they would deem fit. Their recommendations may also be in matters of allowances, amenities, facilities or benefits admissible to various grades of officers, the age of superannuation, the nature and quantum of terminal benefits and principles governing the question of transferability of senior staff amongst the various Nationalised Banks as also other matters incidental or ancillary thereto. This committee came to be known as Pillai Committee. The petitioners have challenged the constitution of the said Committee and its recommendations as being not binding on them. The Pillai Committee submitted its report to the Ministry of Finance on 30.5.1974 incorporating therein its recommendations. The Government of India accepted the recommendations on or about October 1977. It is said that the petitioners from time to time lodged protests and made representations to the Bank as well as the Union of India objecting to the implementation of the recommendations of the Pillai Committee. The main grievance of the petitioners is that their service conditions were of contractual nature and those could not have been altered or modified without their consent and to their detriment and, if so done, are ultra vires the Constitution of India. 4. It is said that Indian Banks' Association, which is an organisation of 14 Nationalised Banks, undertook, at the instance of the Central Government, to prepare a set of model regulations for implementing the recommendations of Pillai Committee as modified by the Study Group of Bankers beaded by Mr. P.F. Gupta and framed model regulations for being passed on to the 14 Nationalised Banks to be adopted by them under the provisions of section 19 (2) of the Nationalised Act. The Central Bank was asked to proceed to adopt the said regulations and the same were circulated. P.F. Gupta and framed model regulations for being passed on to the 14 Nationalised Banks to be adopted by them under the provisions of section 19 (2) of the Nationalised Act. The Central Bank was asked to proceed to adopt the said regulations and the same were circulated. It is said certain objections were made to the implementation of the recommendations but the Board of Directors of the Central Bank at a meeting on 13th June, 1979, by a majority decision ignoring all objection to the proposed regulations adopted the same through the Indian Banks' Association. The same were approved by the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India in fulfilment of the conditions contained in section 19 of the Nationalised Act. The Regulations came into force from 1.7.79 (Annexure 3). The Regulations were communicated to the officers of the Bank though their regional offices in the month of January 1980. It is said that the respondent Bank had no authority nor entitled to change the service conditions of the petitioners. Some of the Regulations indicated above are illegal, prejudicial, injurious and harmful to the officers and employees of the respondent Bank and they challenge particularly Regulations 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20(1), 20(2), 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 51 and 53. 5. Mr. Mukherjee at the time of argument confined his attack to Regulation 5(1) which deals with increment subject to the sanction of the competent authority, categorisation of the officers on the appointed date as provided by Regulation 7, personal pay as envisaged under Regulation 9, personal allowance as provided by Regulation 10, option for existing officers as provided under Regulation 12 (1) and (2), age of retirement as provided under Regulation 19 and Regulation 20 (1) the termination of service by giving three months' notice or by paying three months' emoluments in lieu thereof. He gave up his challenge to other Regulations which would be apparent from the written argument filed on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Regulation 5: So far as this Regulation is concerned, with deals which annual increment as provided under Regulation 4, is said to have been subjected to unbridled discretion as to its grant and refusal. He gave up his challenge to other Regulations which would be apparent from the written argument filed on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Regulation 5: So far as this Regulation is concerned, with deals which annual increment as provided under Regulation 4, is said to have been subjected to unbridled discretion as to its grant and refusal. It is said that the annual increment which should accrue automatically every year is made subject to the sanction of the competent authority without laying down any guidelines for the competent authority as to when it can be refused. Regulation 5(1) of the Service Regulations reads as follows: "The increment specified in the various scales of pay set out in 'regulation 4 shall, subject to the sanction of the competent authority accrue on an annual basis and shall be granted on the first day of the month in which it falls due." The annual increment to different grades has been provided in Regulation 4. It is argued by Mr. Mukherjee that under clause 4 of Central Bank of India Officer Employee's (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 one of the minor penalties as provided under clause 4(b) is withholding of inemements of pay with or without cumulative effect but withholding of one or more increments of an officer employee on account of his failure to pass a prescribed departmental test of examination in accordance with the terms of appointment to the post, however, will not be deemed to be a penalty. This could be imposed after following the usual disciplinary proceedings. Such being the case, Regulation 5 of the Service Regulations, which empowers the competent authority to sanction or not to sanction annual increment is in the nature of a penal provision and as such should be struck down. This could be imposed after following the usual disciplinary proceedings. Such being the case, Regulation 5 of the Service Regulations, which empowers the competent authority to sanction or not to sanction annual increment is in the nature of a penal provision and as such should be struck down. The learned lawyer for the Bank, on the other hand, submitted that the words "subject to the sanction of the competent authority" only mean that before allowing the increment the competent authority will check whether any disciplinary proceeding is pending against the employee, whether he has failed or passed a prescribed departmental test, whether there has been stoppage of pay at the efficiency bar in the time scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar, whether he has been refused promotion or reverted to a lower grade or post etc., which are not precluded under the Explanation to clause 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1976. According to learned Counsel for the Bank increment is never refused and it automatically accrues subject to those checks. To refuse sanction is not at the sweet discretion of the competent authority. In usual course increment will accrue as and when it falls due as provided under Regulation 4 of the Service Regulations. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the expression "subject to the sanction of the competent authority" is not unguided and unbriddled but for scrutinising and checking the service records of the concerned officer in a routine manner in the light of the Explanation to clause 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1976 and matters akin thereto as contended by the Bank. In usual course the Bank concedes that the officers are entitled to annual increment as and when it accrues and no officer has been refused annual increment unless some disciplinary proceeding is pending against him or the other disability visits him. I, therefore, hold that Regulation 5 is a routine checking and is not penal in nature nor it confers unguided and unbridled power. The challenge to its validity, therefore, is groundless. 8. I will take up Regulations 7, 9 and 10 together as they are inter-related. These provisions find place in Chapter III of the Service Regulations which deals with fitment of existing officers and promo tees in the new grades and scales of pay. The challenge to its validity, therefore, is groundless. 8. I will take up Regulations 7, 9 and 10 together as they are inter-related. These provisions find place in Chapter III of the Service Regulations which deals with fitment of existing officers and promo tees in the new grades and scales of pay. Regulation 7 categorises the various posts of officers in the Bank on the appointed date. The table of categorisation as specified in Regulation 7 is set down : Posts Grade in which placed General Managers Top Executive Grade Scale VII. Joint General Managers Deputy General Top Executive Grade Scale VI. Managers Asstt. General Managers Sr. Management Grade Scale IV. Chief Managers Sr. Management Grade Scale V. Officers in Grade ‘A’, Grade 'B' and Grade 'C' Middle Management Grade Scale III. Officers in Grade ‘D’ and Grade ‘E’ Middle Management Grade Scale II. Officers in Grade 'F' Jr. Management Grade Scale I. Top Executive Grade shall have two scales known as Scale VII and Scale VI. Senior Management Grade similarly shall have two scales, namely, Scale V and Scale IV. Middle Management Grade shall have Scale III and Scale II and the Junior Management Grade shall have Scale I. Thus there would be four grades of officers with the scale of pay as hereunder: (8) Top Executive Grade: -Scale VII : Rs.3000-125-3500 -Scale VI : Rs.2750-125-3250 (b) Senior Management Grade: -Scale V : Rs.2500-100-2700 -Scale IV : Rs.2000-100-2400 (c) Middle Management Grade: -Scale III : Rs.1800-75-2250 -Scale II : Rs.1200-70-1550-75-2000. (d) Junior Management Grade: -Scale 1 ; Rs.700-40-900-50-1100-E.B.-1200-60-1800. The grades previous to the appointed date used to be Grades A, B, C, D, E and F. The scale of pay under each such grade before the appointed date is as follows : Grade A -Rs.1800-100-2000 GB Grade B -Rs.1725-75-1800 GB Grade C -Rs.1503-75-1725 GB Grade D -Rs.1360-70-1500 GB Grade E -Rs.1120-60-1360 GB Grade F -Rs.345-30-495-35-600-40-800-850-EB-50-1000-60-1120 GB The officers in Grade ‘F’ are placed under Regulation 7 in Junior Management Grade Scale I. Similarly officers in Grades D and E are placed in Middle Management Grade Scale II and officers in Grades A, B and C are placed in Middle Management Grade Scale III. From a comparison of the existing and the revised scales it would be found that the end point of the revised scales of pay to which a person belonging to existing scale is fitted is much better than the existing scales of pay as well as the quantum of increment obtainable at the end of the year. Under Regulations 8, 9 and 10, wherever some disadvantages accrue in the placement of officers in the new grade that has been protected by grant of adjustment allowance, personal pay and personal allowance. With respect to Regulation 7, the argument of Mr. Mukherjee relates to officers in Grade F and the Junior Management Grade Scale I. In his written argument it has been contended that Regulation 7 vitiates the principles of equal work. According to him, in the Bank of India officers in the last grade from 1st stage to 8th stage are placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I and those who have completed eight years in the existing Scale are fitted in the Middle Management Grade Scale II. Learned counsel submits that this is discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, should be struck down since there is no reasonable basis for such differentiation in the case of a particular Bank in course of hearing a supplementary affidavit has been filed giving the fitment of existing officers and promotees in the new grades and scales of pay of Bank of India which show that the officers in Grade D from 1st stage to 8th stage have been fitted in Junior Management Grade Scale I and officers in Grades C and D from the 9th stage onwards have been fitted in Middle Management Grade Scale II. It would be apparent from Chapter III of the Regulation of the Bank of India that they had only four grades A, B, C and D whereas in the Central Bank there used to be six grades, namely, A, B, C, D. E and F. What were the existing scales of pay of the officers of Rank of India belonging to different grades are not brought on record. It is however, manifest that there did exist different grades of officers in the two Banks. It is however, manifest that there did exist different grades of officers in the two Banks. The petitioners are, therefore, required to show how persons belonging to grade ‘F’ have been arbitrarily fitted in Junior Management Grade and scale of pay obtainable to the said grade. Further, Regulation 7 itself provides that in case of any difficulty and anamoly arising out of the above categorisation, the same can be referred to a committee consisting of the Managing Director and such other persons as may be appointed by the Government for this purpose for its decision. This remedy is not said to have been exhausted by the petitioners. On a comparison of grade 'F' and Scale I, I do not find that there could be any difficulty in fitting the grade F officers in Junior Management Grade Scale I. Categorisation as such cannot be questioned as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. What is sought really to be attacked is the fitment of the officers of the existing scale to the new scale in which, however, the Regulations of the Central Bank have made copious provisions in Regulations 8, 9 and 10. The entire service Regulation of the Bank of India has also not been brought on the record to throw light as to whether the employees are treated in a discriminatory fashion even though discharging the same responsibilities and duties. This is not the ground of attack to Regulation 7 as would be apparent from paragraph 52 of the writ petition. Further, Regulation 8 provides that a person shall be fitted in the scale of pay applicable to that grade in such a manner that his salary in that scale shall have relation with the aggregate of pay plus dearness allowance payable to him immediately before the appointed date in accordance with the guidelines of the Government. It would, therefore, be found that the salary is completely protected by fitment. I, therefore, find no merit that the fitment of officers in grade F in Junior Management Grade Scale I is arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. It would, therefore, be found that the salary is completely protected by fitment. I, therefore, find no merit that the fitment of officers in grade F in Junior Management Grade Scale I is arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. Regulation 9 and 10 are incidental and ancillary to the policy of fitment and these provisions have been made in ORDER :to protect the officers from being in any way prejudiced in the matter of fitment to the new scale by grant of adjustment allowance, personal pay and personal allowance. Where the basic pay and dearness allowance, namely, salary [section 2 (i)], in the new scale is less than pay and dearness allowance of the old scale in the case of a particular individual, in that event the officer is protected by grant of the excess pay which would be known as adjustment allowance. This difference will be continued to be paid to him even on promotion subject to absorption in future increments to the extent of 33-1/3% of each such increment, or of 33-1/3% of the increase in salary, whichever is lower (See Regulation 9). If pay, dearness allowance and other allowances [See adction 2 (e)-emoluments] in the old scale payable to an individual are more than the new scale, such excess shall be protected by grant of personal allowance which shall be absorbed in the future increments to the extent of 33-1/3 percent of each such increment or of 33-1/3 percent of the increase in the salary as a consequence of such increment, whichever is lower. If, however the basic pay in the old scale is more than the basic pay in the new scale then it shall be protected by payment of personal pay. This will, however, only apply to Senior Management Grade (Regulation 9). Added to the revised scale of pay, according to Counsel of the Bank, 82 percent of the basic pay is given by way of dearness allowance. The argument of Mr. Mukherjee is that a revision of pay is meant to better the service conditions of its employees. In the instant case whatever benefits are provided under Regulations 9 and 10 they become adjustable on promotion to higher scales. The argument of Mr. Mukherjee is that a revision of pay is meant to better the service conditions of its employees. In the instant case whatever benefits are provided under Regulations 9 and 10 they become adjustable on promotion to higher scales. It is in the nature of deducting the basic pay to the extent of one third and thus the officers will not get any increment but to rot on the old scale even after promotion. This, according to learned Counsel, is arbitrary and unfair. I am not at all impressed with this argument of learned Counsel. Firstly because the new scale is not a revision of pay scales as contended but alteration of the terms and conditions of service in the new Bank in exercise of the powers conferred under section 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. These are provisions of fitment of the officers of the old scale to the standardised scale brought about. Basic pay is not deducted and/or adjusted. What is adjusted is the personal pay and allowance which are protected under Regulations 9 and 10 while fitting the officers in the new scale of pay according to Regulation 8. This adjustment is also a graded one. It is, therefore, not correct to say that even on promotion an officer does not reap any benefit to maintain his initiative to work. Further, option has been given under Regulation 12 to continue in the old scale till such time the officer is promoted to a scale in the new scale of pay which is higher than the scale of pay to which he was entitled to immediately before the appointed date. I shall deal with Regulation 12 separately but this Regulation also forms part of Chapter III dealing with fitment of existing officers in the new grades and scales of pay. The entire challenge to this regulation is on abstract and on principle. An individual officer is conferred with the right to file appeal under Regulation 13 if he is aggrieved by an ORDER :of fitment accorded to him in the new scales of pay to the Committee constituted by the Board for this purpose. The entire challenge to this regulation is on abstract and on principle. An individual officer is conferred with the right to file appeal under Regulation 13 if he is aggrieved by an ORDER :of fitment accorded to him in the new scales of pay to the Committee constituted by the Board for this purpose. On a perusal of the entire Chapter III of the Service Regulations of the Central Bank, I am convinced that sufficient protection has been afforded to the officers in the matter of fitment in ORDER :to avoid any harm and injury being caused with the right of option to continue in the old scale till the officer is promoted to a scale of pay which is much higher than to which he was entitled to under the old scale. I do not think that Chapter III by any stretch can be held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. Regulation 12: This provision gives an option to a concerned officer to continue on the old scale even after the appointed date (1st July 1979) by communicating to the Bank within thirty days of the receipt of the intimation of fitment in the new scale. The proviso to Regulation 12(1) provides that the option to continue in the old scale will continue till the officer is promoted to a scale in the scale of pay set out in Regulation 4 which is higher than the scale of pay to which he was entitled to immediately before the appointed date. The argument of Mr. Mukherjee is that this provision is ultra vires section 12(2) read with section 29(2)(d) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970. According to learned Counsel if a person opts to continue in the old scale he should be allowed to continue to do so until his employment in the corresponding new Bank is terminated. The section does not confer power upon the Bank to make regulations where option will be permitted to operate for a period only whereas it should be throughout the career of the concerned officer i.e. till termination of service. The learned lawyer for the Bank, on the contrary, contended that this provision is intra vires the power under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The learned lawyer for the Bank, on the contrary, contended that this provision is intra vires the power under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Under section 12(2) the new Bank is authorised to alter the remuneration, terms or conditions of service of its employees. The employees' services stand transferred to the new Bank with all the terms intact until altered. The proviso to Regulation 12(1), according to learned Counsel, in effect, is an alteration of the terms and conditions of service after some time of the making of the regulation and not immediately. This, according to learned lawyer, is quite permissible. 11. Having considered the respective contentions of the parties, I think Mr. Mukherjee is not correct in assailing the proviso to Regulation 12(1) as being ultra vires section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970. The right to alter the of terms and conditions of service by the new Bank of the transferred employees is permissible. In the case of optees the alteration is brought into effect after some time of the making of the regulation. In course of time every body is brought to the same scales of pay instend of continuance of two scales of pay in the Bank. The continuance of two scales of pay, in my opinion, of persons discharging the same and similar duties and responsibilities is not healthy. The proviso is meant for those people who do not wish to run the hassel of fitment from the old scale to the new scale. On officers' promotion to a scale set out in Regulation 4 which is higher than the scale of pay which he was enjoying before the appointed date, the question of fitment does not at all arise. It is for that reason that the period of option has been made time bound and the alteration of the terms conditions of service is deferred for a reasonable time from the enforcement of the new regulation. This is permissible under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and there is no lack of power in the Bank to make such a provision in the regulation. 12. Regulation 19: According to Mr. This is permissible under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and there is no lack of power in the Bank to make such a provision in the regulation. 12. Regulation 19: According to Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the age of retirement, according to this provision, is to be determined by the Board of the Bank in accordance with the guidelines which would be found at page 37 of the Service Regulations. According to learned Counsel, this provides for fixation of different dates of superannuation for officers depending on the dates of entry in the service. Such a classification, according to learned Counsel, is ultra vires in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union or India (A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 130). According to learned Counsel for the Bank, the rules for age of retirement provide a reasonable guideline and reasonable basis at page 37 of the Service Regulations and the retirement age under old contract had to be protected. Those who joined service after the nationalisation their age of retirement ought to be in consonance with the age of retirement of Government servants as recommended in paragraph 8.21 at page 135 (sic) by the Pillai Committee. The rules for age of retirement of an officer it the Bank on or after the appointed date shall be determined as under: “1. An officer employee of the Bank recruited/promoted prior to 19th July, 1969, shall retire on completion of 60 rears of are, 2. An officer employee of the Bank recruited prior to 19th July, 1969 but promoted to an officer on or after 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 60 years of age. 3. An officer employee of the Bank recruited whether as an Award Staff or as an officer employee on or after 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age." It would be not correct to hold that the Bank has introduced an arbitrary eligibility criterion in the matter of age of retirement. According to me there is a reasonable classification discernible and founded on a rational principle. The rules have only tried to protect the age of retirement of persons entering into service prior to nationalisation and a standarised age of retirement of others in consonance with the age of retirement of Government officials and other public sector undertakings. According to me there is a reasonable classification discernible and founded on a rational principle. The rules have only tried to protect the age of retirement of persons entering into service prior to nationalisation and a standarised age of retirement of others in consonance with the age of retirement of Government officials and other public sector undertakings. The pattern to retire at the age of 58 is a uniform pattern as it also obtains in other public sector undertakings. The argument that the classification is arbitrary and irrational does not appeal to me at all and reliance on the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) seems to be misplaced. In the said case it was held that the date of retirement in ORDER :to obtain restricted and liberalised pension had no reasonable and rational principle whereas in the instant case a rational principle is discernible in the matter of date of retirement of officers who have joined the service prior to nationalisation and after nationalisation. I, therefore, bold that Regulation 19 does not suffer from any vice. 13. Regulation 20 (1) : This provision which deals with termination of service empowens the Bank to terminate the services of any officer by giving him three months' notice in writing or by paying him three months' emoluments in lieu thereof. This, according to the petitioners, is wholly illegal and arbitrary in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board and others v. Desh Bandha Ghosh and others [A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 722 : 1985 PLJR 9 (S.C.)] In the said case the Supreme Court was considering the vires of Regulation 34 of the Electricity Board's Regulations which conferred power upon the Board to terminate the service of a permanent employee by serving three months' notice. It was contended that the said provision was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court were of the view that such a term in the condition of service is capable of vicious discrimination. It is a naked 'hire and fire' rule. Learned Counsel for the Bank, however drew my attention to the case of S.B.I. Officers' Association v. S.D. Ganda reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. 900 which has justified the incorporation of such a condition is not being violative of the constitutional guarantee. In view of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court. It is a naked 'hire and fire' rule. Learned Counsel for the Bank, however drew my attention to the case of S.B.I. Officers' Association v. S.D. Ganda reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. 900 which has justified the incorporation of such a condition is not being violative of the constitutional guarantee. In view of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court. I hold that Regulation 20 (1) confers arbitrary and unbridled power on the employer and being capable of vicious discrimination offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is accordingly struck down. 14. I, therefore, hold and declare that Regulation 20 (1) of the Service Regulation is ultra vires the Constitution of India and Regulations 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 19 of the Service Regulations are intra vires for the foregoing reasons. 15. In the result, the writ application is partly allowed and partly dismissed. In view of part success I do not ORDER :for any cost. Application partly allowed and partly dismissed.