JUDGMENT 1. - Two questions arise in this writ petition and they are these : (1) Whether a condition that revised Grade 'B' under establishment circular No. 37/7 dated 24th January 1980 would be allowed on the basis of posting of Managers in Metropolitan Urban/Semi-Urban Centres and Rural Branches. (2) Whether without first fixing in the revised grade as aforesaid all the Managers of the various branches in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban Centres or Rural Branches calling upon for options under Ex. 2 dated 23rd March 1983 was justified? 2. The petitioner Rajasthan Bank Employee's Union which is affiliated to All India Bank Employee's Association claims to represent the officers of the Oriental Bank of Commerce also and the present writ petition has been filed in a representative capacity. The case of the Union is that the Oriental Bank of Commerce (for short the respondent bank) prior to its nationalisation was known as Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd. Before the nationalisation an establishment circular No. 37/7 dated 24th January 1980 was issued by the bank and a copy of it is annexed as Ex. 1. Para (iii) if this circular is relevant and reads as under:- "'(iii) The Managers working at Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban centres whose basic salary on refitment is Rs. 950/- or more will be placed in revised Grade 'B'. Further the Managers with basic salary of less than Rs. 950/- working in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban Centres will be placed in Grade 'B' as soon as their basic salary with the grant of increment in future is Rs. 950/-. The Managers of rural branches and officers below the rank of "Managers be placed in Grade 'C'. However, the Managers of rural branches with annual average total of deposits and advances over Rs. 1 crore with deposits of Rs. 50 lacs will be placed in Gr. 'B' subject to their salary condition indicated above." 3. A perusal of the aforesaid circular will show that placement in the revised Gr. 'B' or revised Grade 'C' was dependent on the place of posting in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban Centres or rural branches. Even if an officer was posted as Manager in rural branch and that branch has annual average total of deposits and advances over Rs. 1 crore with deposits of Rs. 50 lacs was to be placed in Grade 'B'. 'B' or revised Grade 'C' was dependent on the place of posting in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban Centres or rural branches. Even if an officer was posted as Manager in rural branch and that branch has annual average total of deposits and advances over Rs. 1 crore with deposits of Rs. 50 lacs was to be placed in Grade 'B'. It is the case of the Union that the posting or placement in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban Centres or rural branches was not within the power of the officer and, therefore, on the basis of fortuitous circumstance no distinction could have been made in fixation in the revised grades. It is also the case of the union that the instances are not lacking that when the 'aforesaid circular came into force, senior officers were posted in rural branches whereas juniors were posted in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban centres and the result of the above circular was that persons though senior but because they were ported in rural branches were placed in revised Grade 'C' whereas persons who were junior to them and were posted in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi Urban centres were placed in revised Grade 'B' which grade is undisputedly higher grade than revised Grade 'C' The petitioner has given an instance of one Mr. K. L. Paliwal whose name appears at Sr. No. 14 in Schedule A, who was promoted as Manager on 5th November 1976 and one Vinay Ajmera whose same appears at Sr. No. 35 and was promoted as Manager only on 1st June 1982. Whereas Shri Paliwal after the nationalisation of the banks was given JM 1, Shri Ajmera was given MM II. It will appear from para 4 of the petition that after the nationalisation of the banks the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Officer's Service) Regulations, 1982 (for short the Regulations) were framed u/s 19 read with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The aforesaid regulations came into force from 1st June 1983 and that is the 'appointed day'. Under Chapter III of these regulations, categorisation on the appointed date has been prescribed in the Table under Regulation 7 and the said table provides that officers in Grade 'B' Scale (Rs. 950-1920) were placed in Middle Management Grade Scale II whereas the officers in scale 'C' (Rs. Under Chapter III of these regulations, categorisation on the appointed date has been prescribed in the Table under Regulation 7 and the said table provides that officers in Grade 'B' Scale (Rs. 950-1920) were placed in Middle Management Grade Scale II whereas the officers in scale 'C' (Rs. 700-1800) were placed in Junior Management Grade Scale I. I will lateron deal with this question further but it can be said that so far as establishment circular No. 37/7 dated 24th January 1980 is concerned only on the ground of posting in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban centres and rural branches, the Managers were placed in revised Grade 'B' or revised Grade 'C'. Not only this even such of the Managers who were not drawing salary of Rs. 950/- at the time when the aforesaid circular came into force were held entitled to revised Grade 'B', the moment as a result of increment their salary reach Rs. 950/-. Therefore, so far as Manager; working in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban centres on the day when the circular came into force are concerned, not only if their basic salary, refitment is Rs. 950/- but even those who would have reached on the basic salary as a result of subsequent increments were entitled to be placed at revised Grade 'B' whereas the officers who were posted in rural branches and even if they were drawing more than Rs. 950/- when the circular came into force and would have reached on the salary of Rs. 950/- as a result of subsequent increments were not entitled to revised Grade 'B' and were entitled to Grade 'C'. So far as the Managers of rural branches and officers below the rank of Managers are concerned, they were to be placed in Grade 'C'. But Managers of rural branches also in case the annual average total of deposits and advances over Rs. 1 crore with deposits of Rs. 50 lacs were placed in Grade 'B'. I am, therefore, of the opinion that so far as Managers are concerned, whether they were working or posted in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban centres or rural branches, if they were getting Rs. 950/- basic salary on refitment, they were entitled to revised Grade B' and no discrimination could have been made. 4. 50 lacs were placed in Grade 'B'. I am, therefore, of the opinion that so far as Managers are concerned, whether they were working or posted in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban centres or rural branches, if they were getting Rs. 950/- basic salary on refitment, they were entitled to revised Grade B' and no discrimination could have been made. 4. As a result of the abovesaid discrimination serious consequences are to follow as a result of nationalisation of the then Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd. which is now known as Oriental Bank of Commerce (respondent bank). The regulations as stated earlier were framed and table under Regulation 7 has already been referred to earlier provides the categorisation on the appointed date and the categorisation has to be dependent whether officer was in Scale 'B' or Scale 'C'. Such of the officers who were in Scale 'B' were to be categorised as M. M. Grade Scale II and such of the officers who were in Scale 'C' were to be categorised as JM Grade Scale-I. Admittedly, because the earlier one is a higher grade than second and as said earlier the result of the aforesaid discrimination under Circular of the year 1980 will be that such of the officers who were placed in revised scale 'C' they should have been placed in revised Grade 'B' as aforesaid will suffer throughout their service career. 5. The respondent bank has called for options under Ex. 2 dated 23rd March 1983 and a perusal of the aforesaid exhibit will show that regulation came into force on 1st January 1983 and one Paliwal was intimated that he would be placed in JM Grade in Scale I. An option was invited from him to opt either for the existing pay scale and allowances or to the new pay scale and allowances. I am of the opinion that the aforesaid option could have only been called for after each of the person who were working as Manager was placed in the revised Grade B' under the aforesaid circular. 6. An objection has been taken by the respondent bank in its reply that the circular is of 1980 and has been challenged in the year 1983 and when it was made bank had not been nationalised and was only a bank under the Banking Companies Act and, therefore, the circular cannot be set aside now. 6. An objection has been taken by the respondent bank in its reply that the circular is of 1980 and has been challenged in the year 1983 and when it was made bank had not been nationalised and was only a bank under the Banking Companies Act and, therefore, the circular cannot be set aside now. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid objection raised in reply to the writ petition because the result of the aforesaid circular is that even after the nationalisation of the bank, such of the officers who were entitled to revised Grade B', were only given a revised Grade 'C' will be effected so far as their emoluments are concerned. Therefore, the circular can be challenged even now because of the aforesaid reasons. 7. Consequently, I hereby allow this writ petition and hold that the establishment circular No. 37/7 dated 24th January 1980 is discriminatory in so far as it creates two classes of Managers; one posted in Metropolitan/Urban/Semi-Urban centres and the other posted in rural branches. This is discriminatory. It will apply without discrimination to all those persons who were working as Managers and in respect of their posting irrespective of the fact as to whether the bank was in Metropolitan/Urban/Sem-Urban Centre or in rural area. The Ex. 2 is also quashed and the options shall only be invited after refitment of such of the Managers of the respondent bank who were working as Managers in its various branches as on 24th January 1980. This order should be complied with as soon as possible but in no case later than four months. Costs made easy.Petition Allowed. *******