JUDGMENT Dr. B.N. Misra, J. - Non-consideration for promotion from the due date is the grievance of the petitioners. 2. Under the State Bank of India (Supervising Stall) Service Rules which came into force with effect from 1-7-1975, at the junior level there were two categories of officers ; "Officer Grade I-' and "Officer Grade 11". The petitioner belonged to the category of "Officers Grade II'. The Officers' Federation had for a long time been pressing its demand for abolition of the distinction between the two grades In the mean time Government had appointed the Pillai Committee to look into the question of standardisation of pay and allowances of officers working in the nationalised Banks. After the Pillai Committee submitted its report, Government decided that the recommendations of the Pillai Committee should also apply to officers of the State Bank of India. The Pillai Committee inter alia, recommended four grades of officers, the Top Executive Grade, the Senior Management Grade, the Middle Management Grade and the Junior Management Grade. Thereaf ter the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India, after discussions with the Officers' Federation, agreed to do away with the distinction between `Officer Grade I' and `Officer Grade II', who were to be placed in the Junior Management Grade, Scale I. Thereafter the Central Board of the Bank in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, made the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (hereafter referred to as `the 1979 Order'). The 1979 Order was actually made and published on 19-12-1979, but it was brought into force with effect from 1-10-T/79. With the coming into force of the 1979 Order and the abolition of the distinction between `Officer Grade V and `Officer Grade II', the petitioners came to be borne in the Junior Management Grade, Scale I. There is no dispute that the petitioners are `existing Officers' within the meaning of that expression as contained in paragraph 3 of the 1979 Order. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the 1979 Order deal with placement and fitment respectively of existing Officers and their seniority is to be determined as provided in paragraph 18 of the Order. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the 1979 Order deal with placement and fitment respectively of existing Officers and their seniority is to be determined as provided in paragraph 18 of the Order. The petitioners have stated that prior to the coming into force of the 1979 Order, the Bank used to hold tests and interviews of Grade II Officers for promotion to Grade I. Probationary Officers and Trainees Officers were taken in by different examinations. The holding of tests and interviews of Grade II Officers was not regular and sometimes selections were not held throughout the year and in such cases when the tests and interviews were held subsequently, the successful officers were placed in Grade I from the date on which they had completed two years of service in Grade II. The petitioners have further stated that the channel for promotion of Grade II Officers to Grade I had been totally blocked after 1978 while the channel for promotion of Trainee Officer was still left open. On these promises the petitioners filed the present writ petition praying for directions to the respondent Bank to hold the test and interview for promotion to the erstwhile Grade 1 Officers' cadre, to consider the petitioners for promotion to the Middle Management Grade and for fixation, of their seniority on the basis of their appointments. 3. In its counter the respondent Bank has, inter alia, taken the stand that relying upon the resolution, dated 19-12-1979 of the Central Board and in order to avoid any inter se anomalies between Grade II and Grade I Officers, the respondent Bank did not consider if expedient to hold promotional test for Grade II Officers prior to 30-9-1979 on which date they were deemed to be promoted and confirmed as Officer Grade I under the merger scheme. It is explained that the process of requirement of Trainee Officers and Probationary Officers was different under separate channels of promotion and recruitment. The allegation discrimination is denied. It is further stated that seniority of the petitioners has been fully protected under sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 18 of the 1979 Order and that the petitioners 'would be entitled to promotion to higher grade in due course. 4. By its judgment, dated 3-1-1986 this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was in-fructuous. It is further stated that seniority of the petitioners has been fully protected under sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 18 of the 1979 Order and that the petitioners 'would be entitled to promotion to higher grade in due course. 4. By its judgment, dated 3-1-1986 this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was in-fructuous. Thereafter some of the petitioners moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court which by its order, dated 30-9-1988 in Civil Appeal No. 3494 of 1988 arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 4515 of 1986, set aside the order of this Court and sent the case back for disposal on merits since it appeared to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioners still have some substantial grievance which requires consideration of this Court. 5. After remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the parties have filed further affidavits in support of their respective cases, but the reliefs claimed by the petitioners remain the same. 6. In paragraph 12 of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by R.K. Garg on behalf of the respondent Bank, it is inter alia, stated that the petitioners were not eligible for promotion to the Middle Management Grade, Scale II on 1-3-1984 or 1-8-1985, but eligible for consideration for promotion with effect from 1-8-1986. On the other hand, in his supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner A.B. Malviya in November, 1988 it is stated that though eligible, the petitioners have not been considered for promotion to the Middle Management Grade : Scale It with effect from 1 9-1984 or 1-8-1985. Thus., the main dispute between the parties is whether, as claimed by the petitioners, they are entitled to be considered for promotion to the Middle Management Grade : Scale II with effect from 1-8-1984/1-8-1985 or with effect from 1-8-1986 as pleaded by the respondent Bank. 7. Hence it could be useful to look into the promotion policy as contained in the memorandum, dated 17-9-1983, passed by the Executive Committee of the Central Board on 28-9-1983 and also the modifications made therein for the years 1984 and 1985. Copies of these circulars have been filed as Annexures-I and II to the supplementary-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank on 3-5-1989. The following extract from paragraph 2 of Annexure II is important and may be extracted : "2. Copies of these circulars have been filed as Annexures-I and II to the supplementary-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank on 3-5-1989. The following extract from paragraph 2 of Annexure II is important and may be extracted : "2. Within a view to expediting the process of promotion, the Executive Committee of the Central Board at its meeting held on October 31, 1985, has approved of the following measures : (i) There will be a common written test for promotion under the merit channel for 1984 and 1985. While those who joined as erstwhile Officers Grade I upto 1-8-1978 or were senior to them on the basis of date of confirmation will be considered for promotion with effect from 1-8-1984, these who joined thereafter but upto 30-9-1979 will be considered for promotion with effect from 1-9-1985. Some additional promotions under the seniority channel for 1984 will also be made. ** ** ** Annexures S-3 and S-4 annexed to the supplementary-affidavit of petitioner A. B, Malviya filed in November, 1988 containing Staff Circular Letter No. 91 of 1986 and Circular Letter No. 181 of 1986 respectively, deal with promotion to Middle Management Grade, Scale II with effect from 1-8-1984. In paragraph-2 of Annexure S-3 it has been provided that all those officers who were appointed/promoted as erstwhile Officer Grade-I upto 1-8-1978 and have completed six years' service as Officer Grade-I on 1-8-1984 would be eligible to appear in the written test. The eligibility criteria has been modified by S 4 wherein it is provided that those officers who joined as erstwhile Officer Grade-I upto 1-8-1978 or were senior to them on the basis of date of confirmation would be eligible. Annexure S-6 to the said supplementary affidavit provides the guide lines for promotion to the Middle Management Grade : Scale II under merit channel with effect from 1-8-1985. In paragraph-2 the criteria for identification of eligible candidates is laid down as : "All erstwhile Officers Grade-I who joined or were promoted to erstwhile Officers Grade-1 upto September 30, 1979 are eligible." Paragraph-4 of Annexure S-6 is important and extracted hereunder : "4. In paragraph-2 the criteria for identification of eligible candidates is laid down as : "All erstwhile Officers Grade-I who joined or were promoted to erstwhile Officers Grade-1 upto September 30, 1979 are eligible." Paragraph-4 of Annexure S-6 is important and extracted hereunder : "4. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that there are some officers who were promoted to erstwhile Officers Grade II and while remaining in that grade, only for the purpose of fitment, were given the salary scale applicable to officers Grade -I at the time of the implementation of Pillai Committee Recommendations. Such officers are not yet eligible for promotion to M.M.G.S.-II. As such, please do not include their names while recommending the names of eligible officers from your Branch/Office." 8. Keeping in view (he eligibility criteria for promotion to the Middle Management Grade : Scale II with effect from 1-8-1984 and 1-8-1985, we proceed to consider the respective cases of the parties. 9. In support of the petitioner's claim, Dr. R. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on their behalf has urged the following two points, First, it is pointed out that in the original counter filed by the respondent Bank in paragraph 20 it is clearly stated that the "petitioners belong to the category of `existing officers' inasmuch as they being erstwhile Officers Grade II, were deemed to be promoted and confirmed as Officers Grade-1 as on 30-9-1979. i.e. before the D.T.C.O.S., Order, 1979 was implemented with effect from 1-12-1979" and that ` the deemed promotion of erstwhile Officer Grade 11 as Officers Grade I with effect from 30-9-1979 was under the merger scheme implemented by the Bank. It is pointed out that the promotion of the petitioners to Grade-I with effect from 30-9-1979 has been repeated in some more paragraphs of the said counter. It is argued that when the case of the respondent Bank as disclosed in the original counter referred to above, is that the petitioners were promoted and confirmed in Grade-I on 39-9-1979, the petitioners became senior to Officers of Grade-1 who had not been confirmed but were on probation as on 30-9-1979. It is argued that when the case of the respondent Bank as disclosed in the original counter referred to above, is that the petitioners were promoted and confirmed in Grade-I on 39-9-1979, the petitioners became senior to Officers of Grade-1 who had not been confirmed but were on probation as on 30-9-1979. The second point urged on behalf of the petitioners is that by virtue of the memorandum, dated 3rd December, 1979 Annexure-CA II to the supplementary counter-affidavit of R. K. Garg which was approved by the Executive Committee of the Central Board on 19-12-1979 vide Annexure-CA-TIT, appended to the same affidavit, the petitioners must be held to have been promoted to Grade 1 on 30-9-1979 and as such they are entitled to consideration for promotion on that basis. Emphasis has been laid on the following portion as contained in Anuexure-CA-III. " .. .. (i) the basic pay of an officer Grade-II in the service of the Bank immediately before the 1st October, 1979 be reckoned for the purpose of fitment and protection under the Pillai Committee Recommendations as equivalent to what he would have drawn had he been promoted to Grade I immediately before the 1st October, 1979." Reference has also been made to Circular No. 33 of 1980, Annexure-F, appended to the original counter-filed by the respondent Bank, wherein in paragraph-8 it is provided : "The long standing demand of the Federation regarding merger of Officers Grade-II and Grade-I gets settled with the implementation of the P. C. R. scheme. The Executive Committee at its Meeting held on the 19th December, 1979 decided that the basic pay of an Officer Grade-II in the service of the Bank immediately before the 1st October, 1979 be reckoned for the purpose of fitment and protection under the P. C. R., as equivalent to what he would have drawn had he been promoted to Grade-I immediately before the 1st October, 1979, corresponding benefit being given to the existing Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers where necessary to avoid inter se anomalies. Accordingly, existing Officers Grade-II will first be notionally fitted into the scale applicable to Officers Grade-I by placing them at stage next above their basic pay and thereafter at the corresponding stage in the new Scale I as specified in Schedule-11 to the Order. Also their total emoluments will be recalculated as Officers Grade I for the purpose of protection." . Also their total emoluments will be recalculated as Officers Grade I for the purpose of protection." . On the basis of the guide lines extracted above, it is claimed that the petitioners must be held to have been promoted to Grade-I on 30-9-1979 prior to the coming into force of the 1979 Order on 1-10-1979. 10. As regards the first point referred to above Mr. S.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, submitted that the averments in the original counter regarding promotion to Grade I and confirmation of the petitioners on 30-9-1979 are inadvertent misstatements of facts and were made under a mistaken impression and wrong interpretation of the relevant memorandum and resolution passed by the Executive Committee. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the same officer who had sworn the affidavit in respect of the original counter wherein the mistaken been admitted and an unconditional apology tendered. In view of the candid admission by the concerned officer that the misstatements in the original counter were on account of his misconception and wrong interpretation, we do not take a serious view of the lapse. On careful consideration of the whole matter we are firmly of the view that the petitioners cannot claim promotion and confirmation as Grade-I officers on 30-9-1979 on the basis of the misstatements referred to above contained in the original counter-filed by the respondent-Bank. 11. As regards the second point, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has raised a preliminary objection. It is argued that the resolution, dated 3-12-1979 which was approved by the Executive Committee on 19-12-1979 and the Staff Circular No. 33 of 1980, merely represent an agreement between the parties. They have not been carried into the 1979 Order and as such the petitioners cannot seek to enforce the agreement by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the Staff Circular No. 33 of 1980 as well as the resolution, dated 3-12-1979 approved by the Executive Committee, on 19-12-1979 which have been made by the appropriate authorities in exercise of statutory powers are binding on the respondent-Bank and enforceable. There is some force in this connection made on behalf of the petitioners. There is some force in this connection made on behalf of the petitioners. Besides, it should be noted that the order of this Court, dated 3-1-1986, dismissing the writ petition, has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the case has been sent back to this Court for disposal on merits. Therefore, on consideration the preliminary objection is, overruled. 12. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the words " . had be been promoted to Grade-I immediately before the 1st October, 1979." In the aforesaid resolution and paragraph-8 of Circular No 33 of 1980 actually mean that the petitioners who were Grade II Officers have been promoted to Grade I on 30-V-1979 Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has, on the other hand, argued that a reading of the whole sentence really shows that only for the purpose of fitment and protection of existing emoluments under the Pillai Committee recommendation, the basic pay of Grade II officers should be reckoned as equivalent to what he would have drawn had he been promoted immediately before 1-10-1979. Reliance in this regard is placed on paragraph 7 of the memorandum dated 3-12-1979. it is further submitted that the entire purpose of the aforesaid memorandum, resolution and circular was to give the benefit of fitment and placement to the petitioners and nothing else and that no promotion was ever contemplated. In this regard reference has been made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1988) 1 SCC 596 - Kashmirilal and others v. State Bank of Patiala. Wherein the Supreme Court held : "The appellant is an officer of the Stale Bank of Patiala which is a subsidiary bank of the State Bank of India. The respondent-Bank framed a set of service Regulations in 1979 under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1979 with a view to rationalising the services w.e.f. October 1, 1979. Implementation of the scheme by the respondent-Bank under the Regulation proceeded under a misconception that the fitment contemplated by way of rationalisation was one of promotion When the matter was originally heard, we had pointed out to counsel for the respondent-Bank that the scheme did not provide for promotion and all that was necessary was to carry out the appropriate fitment without anything more. It is not disputed that on October 1, 1979 there were 178 posts to which fitment was to be made out of the 430 officers keeping the basis of seniority in view It is equally not in dispute that the appellant came within the limit of 178 officers in the seniority list. As such he became entitled to the benefit of fitment right from October 1, 1979 and the respondent-Bank was obliged to give him that fitment." 13. In the present case we have carefully perused the memorandum, dated 3-12-1979, the resolution of the Executive Committee, dated 19-12-1979, and paragraph-8 of the Circular No. 33 of 1980 and we find that fitment and protection of emoluments of erstwhile Grade II Officers were the sole purpose of and the only benefit contemplated under the above three documents. They did not involve any promotion of erstwhile Grade-II Officers to Grade I on 30-9-1979. A mathematical calculation of the sum equivalent to what an erstwhile Grade II Officer would have drawn had he been promoted to Grade I immediately prior to 1-10-1979 was necessary for the purpose of fitment and protection of emoluments of those officers. Beyond this nothing more was contemplated. It is worthy of note that the distinction between Officer-Grade I and Grade II was abolished not on 30-9-1979, but with effect from 1-10-1979 on which date the Grade I and Grade II Officers were merged into one category, namely, Junior Management Grade : Scale I. The memorandum, dated 3-12-1979, resolution, dated 19-12-1979 and paragraph 8 of Circular No. 33 of 1980 merely provided for fitment and protection of emoluments or erstwhile Grade II Officers without anything more. Thus the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for promotion to Middle Management Grade : Scale II with effect from 1-8-1984 as they were not officers who. had joined as erstwhile Officer Grade I upto 1-8-1978 or were senior to them on the basis of date of confirmation. The petitioners also did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for promotion with effect from 1-8-1985 as they were not erstwhile Officers Grade I or were promoted to erstwhile Officers Grade I upto 30-9-1979. 14. had joined as erstwhile Officer Grade I upto 1-8-1978 or were senior to them on the basis of date of confirmation. The petitioners also did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for promotion with effect from 1-8-1985 as they were not erstwhile Officers Grade I or were promoted to erstwhile Officers Grade I upto 30-9-1979. 14. In this context learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1399 - State Bank of India v. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava and others with T.N. Goel and others v. The Chairman, State Bank of India and others, wherein it was, inter alia, held : "In this connection, we may notice the argument of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the Probationary/Trainee Officers, that the merger of Officers Grade II and Grade I into the Junior Management Grade was only for the purpose of fitment in the higher scale of pay and not for the purpose of seniority. It has been already stated that it was the demand of the Officers' Federation, re-presenting both Officers Grade I and Officers Grade II, that the distinction between these two Grades should be abolished in every respect and, ultimately, it was agreed that they would be placed in one grade, that is, the Junior Management Grade, having a higher scale of pay, subject to this that the officers Grade I will be above the Officers Grade II in the seniority list. It appears from the Circular No. 9 issued by Officers' Federation that the Pillai Committee's recommendations would be implemented in the State Bank Group from October 1, 1979. Thus, it was agreed by the Officers' Federation that a scheme, namely, the merger of Officers Grade I and Officers Grade II into Junior Management Grade would take place with effect from October 1, 1979 and that has been exactly given effect to by the order under which the existing Officers, that is, the Officers who were in the employment of the Bank immediately prior to October 1, 1979, would be placed in the new Junior Management Grade and to Scale I, as contained in Schedule I to the Order. In para 2(1) of the order, provision has been made for the application for the order to other officers. In para 2(1) of the order, provision has been made for the application for the order to other officers. Thus, it is dear dm all the officers of the Bank in the lower level before the Probationary or Trainee Officers were appointed on 30j3l-10-1979 agreed that they would merge into a new Grade and Officers Grade I would be senior to the Officers Grade-II. This was the result of the recommendations of the Pillai Committee suggesting that there should be one grade for the Officers Grade-I and II in the lower level. It may be that Pillai Committee did not make any recommendation with regard to seniority, but when two grades of officers are merged into a new grade, the question of inter se seniority will automatically arise and it will be the duty of the employer to fix the seniority. Indeed, paras 8 to 18 of the Order lays down the principles for computing the seniority of the officers of the Bank. But under para 18(5) of the Order, the seniority among the existing officers will remain the same. In other words, the Officers Grade I will remain seniors to Officers Grade II." (Emphasis added). 15. In the supplementary affidavit-filed by petitioners A.B. Malviya in November, 1988 it has been alleged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was misled to a wrong conclusion by the respondent-Bank. This allegation has been denied by the respondent Bank and is otherwise frivolous and hence rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that the petitioners who belonged to the category of erstwhile Grade II Officers muse in seniority rank below the erstwhile Grade I Officers in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 18(5) of the 1979 Order applicable to the existing officers. Thus, we hold that the petitioners are not eligible for consideration for promotion to Middle Management Grade, Scale If with effect from 1-8-1984 and 1-8-1985. 16. As regards the allegation of discrimination, the respondent Bank has explained that the process of recruitment of Trainee Officers and Probationary Officers was different under separate channels of promotion and recruitment, There can be no dispute that the petitioners while working as Grade II Officers until their merger with erstwhile Grade 1 Officers into one category, namely. Junior Management Grade : Scale I on 1-10-1979, formed a separate and completely different category. Junior Management Grade : Scale I on 1-10-1979, formed a separate and completely different category. The petitioners cannot have a cause for complaint if the respondent-Bank decided as a matter of policy, to maintain the process of recruitment and promotion in respect of Probationary and Trainee Officer and decided to withhold the text and interview of the erstwhile Grade II Officers keeping in view the fact that, the merger scheme as between the erstwhile Grade II and Grade I Officers was about to be implemented. The allegation of discrimination has not at all been substantiated and hence is rejected. An alternative relief sought for by the petitioners is that the respondent-Bank should be directed to hold a test for the petitioners for promotion to the erstwhile Grade I Officers' cadre. The erstwhile cadre of Grade I and Grade II Officers has been abolished with effect from .1-10-19 /9 and therefore at present the question of holding a test in respect of the petitioners for promotion to the erstwhile cadre of Grade I Officers must be ruled out of consideration This prayer is rejected. 17. As already noted in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by R K. Garg on behalf of the respondent-Bank, it is stated that the petitioners are eligible for consideration for promotion with effect from 1-8-1986. We are sure that the respondent-Bank shall consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the Middle Management Grade : Scale II with effect from 1-8-1986 giving them their seniority in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 18 of the 1979 Order. 18. For reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim directions stand vacated.