JUDGMENT 1. 1. All these writ petitions involve a common question of law, and therefore, they are being 1990 disposed of by this common order. We shall mention herein, the facts of DB Civil Writ Petition No. 547/79 (P.P. Arora v. Central Bank of India) . 2. P.P. Arora petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk in Central Bank of India, on 21st March 69. He was later on promoted as Sub-Accountant on 17th Nov., 75, and is still in the service of Central Bank of India. 3. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking a direction for fixing their pay-scales in the Officers' Grade under Pillay Committee's recommendations. Their case is that the Central Bank of India has its branches all over the country at different places, and the areas have been classified in three categories, i.e., area No. 1, area No. 2 and area No. 3. These classifications have been made on the basis of population of various cities where the branches of the Bank are situated, in accordance with a bi-partite settlement. In area No. 1, the Metropolitan cities like Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras are included, whereas, in area No. 2, almost all the State-Capitals including Jaipur, are included, and the remaining places come under area No. 3. The persons employed in area No. 1, are entitled to Basic Pay, DA and in addition to this, they are also entitled to House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance, whereas, the persons employed in area No. 2, are entitled to their Basic Pay DA and in some cases to House Rent Allowance also, whereas, the persons employed in area No. 3, are entitled to Basic Pay and DA only. The complaint/grievance of the petitioners is that when the persons are promoted in different areas, their basic pay in the three areas, is different. The persons who are juniors but employed in areas Nos. 1 & 2, have their basic pay more than those employed in area No. 3, and the persons employed in area No. 1, though they arc juniors when promoted, have their basic pay more than those employed in areas Nos. 2 & 3, and therefore, according to the petitioners, this amounts to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 &16 of the Constitution. 4. Notices of these writ petitions were issued to the respondent Bank, and a reply has been filed by it. 2 & 3, and therefore, according to the petitioners, this amounts to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 &16 of the Constitution. 4. Notices of these writ petitions were issued to the respondent Bank, and a reply has been filed by it. In its reply, the Bank has admitted that there is an anomaly existing, but, their case is that this anomaly is on account of following Salim Merchant Award. Even the petitioners have filed Ex. 10, which is the Minutes of the Joint Discussions held at the Central Office from 14th to 16 Oct., 1978. It has been observed therein that the anomalous position arising out of the fixation of salary of clerks on promotion to Officers Grade from Class I, II and III areas on or after 1.1.1970, was brought to the notice of the management by the Federation, and that, it was, however, agreed by both the sides that due to the existence of certain uncommon components viz. C.C.A. at higher areas forming part of the clerical wages have granted this anomaly. The management noted the points raised by the Federation and informed that an agreed formula would have to be worked out to solve this problem. We would like to have a further detailed dialogue with a smaller group before implementation of uniform scale of pay. Even after this, nothing has come out so far. 5. The petitioners in their writ petitions, have placed reliance on a decision of a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Rajasimbam v. The Central Bank of India(Writ Petition No. 483/75, decided on 29 July, 77) . 6. The learned counsel for the respondent, has also placed before us a decision of a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of C.Yerrappa v. The Central Bank of India (Writ Petitions Nos. 1401 & 3350 of 1978, decided on 17th Aug., 82 ), whereby, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been overruled. 7. We have carefully gone through the judgment (supra) of the division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 8. After the Salim Merchant Award, the fitment charts which have been produced as Annxs. 1401 & 3350 of 1978, decided on 17th Aug., 82 ), whereby, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been overruled. 7. We have carefully gone through the judgment (supra) of the division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 8. After the Salim Merchant Award, the fitment charts which have been produced as Annxs. G & H, were prepared, and the salary ranges under an agreement between the employees and the Bank, and since the contention of the petitioners involves interpretation of this Award and the fitment charts prepared after an agreement between the two parties, it is not open for this Court sitting under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under An. 226, to give any finding. The anomaly is obvious. Even, the Bank admits that there is an anomaly. There were negotiations in 1978, and as has been quoted above, a further detailed negotiation was to be held, but, it appears that it has not been held so far, and therefore, in our opinion, the petitioners should raise a dispute by seeking a reference to the Industrial Tribunal as enjoined by Section 36-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not proper for this Court to reopen the settlement arrived at between the parties, in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction; and the proper course for the petitioners would be to agitate this point in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 9. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of, with no order as the costs. It is expected that as and when a dispute is raised, the matter would be decided expeditiously, because, the matter has been pending for the last more than ten years.Order accordingly. *******