R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a direction on the respondents to appoint him as its Accounting Machine Operator in the Gandhi Road Branch of the Bank and to show him in the seniority list at Anx. F which is arranged according to the date of drawing allowances on the basis of the offer of the said post made to him on 18/08/1978. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the Bank of Baroda as a Typist-clerk on 2 9/08/1966 and thereafter became a Clerk on 8/05/1972. He was sent for training as Accounting Machine Operator in the year 1971 and thereafter was assigned the work of Accounting Machine Operator from 1974 without being given any regular appointment. He kept on working as a reliever for the said work. By letter dated 1 8/07/1978 the petitioner was offered appointment as Accounting Machine Operator which as per the rules attracted special allowance which was Rs. 43 per month at the relevant time. The duties as Accounting Machine Operator were in addition to the petitioners normal duties as a Clerk. The petitioner however by his letter dated 20th July 78 requested the Bank that he may be given a chance to work as Accounting Machine Operator at the Gandhi Road Branch as and when vacancy may arise and he was not willing to work at Sankdi Sheri Branch for which the appointment letter dated 1 8/07/1978 was issued. The petitioner had thereafter continued as a relieving Accounting Machine Operator upto July 1979 However thereafter since it appeared that the respondents had debarred him for a regular appointment as Accounting Machine Operator for a period of 5 years on the basis of his not having accepted the offer made on 18/07/1978 the present petition was filed. ( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents Bank seeks to rely upon a settlement arrived at on 3/10/1978 as reflected in the Circular dated 20/10/1978 to justify debarring the petitioner from being appointed as Accounting Machine Operator for a period of 5 years from the date of his refusal. He submitted that the said settlement or the Circular were not in existence at the time when the petitioner had refused to work at the Sankdi Sheri Branch as Accounting Machine Operator. He submitted that the said settlement or the Circular were not in existence at the time when the petitioner had refused to work at the Sankdi Sheri Branch as Accounting Machine Operator. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank on the other hand submitted that negotiations were already going on on the question of special allowances since 1977 and even though they were finalised by a settlement dated 3/10/1978 they could be applied in the petitioners case. He submitted that the petitioner was ultimately appointed as Accounting Machine Operator on 26/11/1984 after the completion of 5 years from his refusal to accept the offer in July 1978. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the settlement on other issues was arrived at on 3/10/1978 between the Bank and All India Bank of Baroda Employees Federation. Merely because discussions were going on on various dates in 1977 as mentioned in clause 1. 3 of the Memorandum of Settlement it cannot be said that any policy of debarring a person for 5 years which is now covered by clause 10 of the settlement was in existence at that time. Clause 10 of the said settlement provided as under:10 When an employee refuses to accept offer of an assignment/duties attracting special allowance on regular basis or on temporary basis on three occasions he will be deemed to be debarred for being eligible for such allowance for a period of five years from the date of such offer. His case would be considered after that period only if he makes a written request after that period for consideration of his case in future. Pursuant to the said settlement Circular dated 20/10/1978 at Annexure I to the affidavit-in-reply was issued reflecting the said settlement contained in Clause 10 of the Memorandum in Clauses 8. 4 and 8. 5 thereof. In Clause 8. 6 of the Circular it was mentioned that the settlement superceded all the previous arrangements. The petitioner was offered the post of Accounting Machine Operator by letter dated 18/07/1978 when admittedly no such policy as contained in the said settlement and the Circular was in force. 4 and 8. 5 thereof. In Clause 8. 6 of the Circular it was mentioned that the settlement superceded all the previous arrangements. The petitioner was offered the post of Accounting Machine Operator by letter dated 18/07/1978 when admittedly no such policy as contained in the said settlement and the Circular was in force. It is therefore obvious that at that time i. e. on 20th July 1978 when the petitioner refused to go and work in the Sankdi Sheri Branch as Accounting Machine Operator he would never have known that by such refusal he would be debarred for a period of 5 years for working in the said post on a regular basis. It appears that Mr. Adhvaryu and Mr. Faizpurkar who were working in the Gandhi Road Branch and were senior to the petitioner had earlier refused to work at Asarva Branch when they were offered the post of Accounting Machine Operator in the years of 1977 and 1978 with a request that they may be accommodated in the Gandhi Road Branch as and when vacancies arose. They were accordingly absorbed in the Gandhi Road Branch in May 1978 as stated in paragraph 10 of the petition. These facts were not controverted on behalf of the respondents. It is therefore quite likely that when the petitioner refused to go and work in the Sankdi Sheri Branch while simultaneously making a request that he should be absorbed in the Gandhi Road Branch he might have been guided by these instances. In any event there was no policy of debar ring persons for any period of time on their refusal to accept the appointment in July 1978 when the petitioner had refused to go to Sankdi Sheri Branch while showing his eagerness to be absorbed in the Gandhi Road Branch where he was working. The respondents could not have given a retrospective operation to a subsequent settlement to the disadvantage of the petitioner employee. By enforcing the term of settlement by which an employee was debarred for being eligible for the special allowances for a period of 5 years from July 1978 when the petitioner had refused to accept the appointment outside the Gandhi Road Branch the respondents have introduced a new adverse condition which was not in existence at the relevant time. By enforcing the term of settlement by which an employee was debarred for being eligible for the special allowances for a period of 5 years from July 1978 when the petitioner had refused to accept the appointment outside the Gandhi Road Branch the respondents have introduced a new adverse condition which was not in existence at the relevant time. The respondents have therefore acted arbitrarily in considering the petitioner as having been debarred for a period of 5 years from the date of the earlier offer dated 18/08/1978 made to him to work as an Accounting Machine Operator in the Sankdi Sheri Branch since at that relevant time the said policy was not in existence and two similarly situated persons were accommodated in the said Gandhi Road Main Branch even though they had refused to work as Accounting Machine Operators outside the Branch. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was offered appointment on regular basis after 3/10/1978 and that he had refused any such offer. The action of the respondents therefore in debarring the petitioner from appointing him as Accounting Machine Operator for a period of 5 years was arbitrary discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner was working as a reliever until he was regularly appointed as an Accounting Machine Operator on 26/11/1984 and therefore even if the petitioner is given the date of Accounting Machine Operator from the date on which vacancy may have arisen in the Gandhi Road Branch immediately after his refusal the petitioner would not claim any allowance for the past period. The seniority list which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner at Anx. F to the petition is a list arranged according to the date of drawing the allowance. The said seniority list according to the petitioner is prepared for the purpose of making appointments of Operators of computer machines installed in various branches of the Bank in the city. F to the petition is a list arranged according to the date of drawing the allowance. The said seniority list according to the petitioner is prepared for the purpose of making appointments of Operators of computer machines installed in various branches of the Bank in the city. Therefore the seniority list in so far as it fixes the seniority of the petitioner from the date of drawing of the allowance on regular basis and putting him to disadvantage on the ground that he was debarred for 5 years in view of the orders contained in Circular dated 20-10-1978 treats the petitioner unjustly inasmuch as the orders which were not in force at the time of his refusal were made applicable to him. There is no reason why the petitioner should have been discriminated against when similarly situated persons were absorbed in the said Branch after having refused to go elsewhere. The petitioner has therefore made out a case for issuing direction on the respondents to fix his seniority according to date of drawing allowance afresh without considering him as having been debarred due to his refusal to accept the offer of appointment made on 18/07/1978. ( 5 ) THE respondents are therefore directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner on the basis of date of drawing allowance in the list at Annexure F afresh without treating him as having been debarred due to his refusal to accept the offer of appointment as Accounting Machine Operator made by letter dated 18/07/1978. The respondents shall fix his place in the said list within two months from today from the date that he would have been appointed on regular basis as Accounting Machine Operator ignoring his refusal to accept the offer made on 1 8/07/1978. Rule is made absolutely accordingly with no order as to costs. (NVA) Orders accordingly. .