U.L. Bhat, C.J. — This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing Civil Rule No. 338 of i992. 2. The writ petition was filed by State Bank of India Officers' Association, North Eastern Circle and its President, who is an Officer of the State Bank of India, seeking to quash Annexure I letter dated 15.7.1991 and Annexure II letter dated 30.10.1991. Annexure II letter has been quashed by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal by the State Bank of India. 3. Terms and conditions of service of officers of the Bank are governed by State Bank of India (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (for short, 19/y Order). Clause 23 of the Order deals with other allowances. Clause 23 (ii) states that an officer shall be eligible for a special area allowance at such places and at such rates as may be decided by the Central Board or the Executive Committee from time to time. According to clause 23 (x), an officer serving in a place men­tioned in column 1 of the table given therein shall be eligible for a hill and fuel allowance at the rate mentioned in column 2 of the table against that place. Officers working in special areas designated by the Central Board or the Executive Committee, which stations also come within the purview of the altitudes referred to in column 1 of the table in clause 23 (x) were eligible to claim both the allowances. 19/9 Order was evidently based on guidelines issued by the Government of India which the Bank by virtue of section 18 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) is. obliged to obey. 4. The Executive Committee of the Central Board at its meeting held on 3.10.1991 approved changes in the scheme of payment of special area allowance on account of revised Government guidelines in the matter. No change in the rates and places at which the allowance is payable is made. The Executive Committee decided that at centre where both special area allo­wance and hill and fuel allowance are payable, the officers shall be eligible 10 draw only the higher of the two allowance and not both and that this would be effective from 1.1.1990. No change in the rates and places at which the allowance is payable is made. The Executive Committee decided that at centre where both special area allo­wance and hill and fuel allowance are payable, the officers shall be eligible 10 draw only the higher of the two allowance and not both and that this would be effective from 1.1.1990. It" such higher of the two allowances is Jess than aggregate of the two allowances drawn by tae officer on 31.12.1989, then such difference shall be protected as personal allowance (special area) till such time as the officer remains in the place. Recovery was also directed from officers con­cerned with effect from 1.1.1990. A circular was accordingly issued following the terms of Annexure II letter. The Government decision which was follower by the Executive Committee is seen in Annexure I letter dated 15.7.1991. 5. It is argued before the learned Single Judge that the Central Board alone has the power to alter, amend, modify the conditions of service pres­cribed in the 1979 Order and the Executive Committee, being a creature of the Central Board, has no such power. This argument found favour with the learned Single Judge, who therefore struck down the impugned changes in the scheme of allowances. It was also argued before the learned Single Judge that granting retrospective effect to the change with effect from 1.1.1990 was not called for. The argument also found favour with the learned Single Judge, 6. So for as the retrospectivity with effect from 1.1.1990 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants clarifies that by a subsequent order 1.2.1992 has been fixed as the date on which the change would be brought into force. Therefore, the alleged vice of retrospectivity no longer subsists. 7. The more important question is whether learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Executive Committee has no power to bring about any changes in the conditions of service prescribed by the Central Board under the 1979 Order. 8. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines 'Central Board' as the Central Board of Directors of the State Bank. 7. The more important question is whether learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Executive Committee has no power to bring about any changes in the conditions of service prescribed by the Central Board under the 1979 Order. 8. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines 'Central Board' as the Central Board of Directors of the State Bank. By virtue of section 17 of the Act, the general superintendence and direction of the affairs and business of the State Bank are entrusted to the Central Board which may exercise all powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the State Bank and are not by the Act expressly directed or required to be done by State Bank in general meeting. Section i 8 obliges the Central Board in the discharge of its functions to be guided by such directions in matters of policy invol­ving public interest as the Central Government may give to it in consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Chairman of the State Bank. Section 19 prescribes the composition of the Central Board. It is to consist of a Chairman, a Vice-chairman, two Managing Directors, Presidents of the local boards ex-officio, two to four Directors, one Director representing the employees who are workmen, one Director representing the employees who are not workman, one Director being a nominee of the Central Government one Director being a nominee of the Reserve Bank, and two to six Director to be nominated by the Central Government form among persons having special knowledge of the working of co-operative, institutions and of rural economy or experience in commerce, industry, banking or finance. Thus it can be seen that the Board would naturally cosist of a fairly large number of members. 9. Section 30 deals with Executive Committee and other committees of the Central Board. The Central board may constitute such and so many committees including and an Executive Committee, of itself as it deems fit to exercise such power and perform such duties as may be delegated to them by the Central Board. subject of course to such conditions, if any, as the Central Board may impose. The Executive Committee which took the decision challenged in the writ petition is the Executive: Committee contemplated in section 30. subject of course to such conditions, if any, as the Central Board may impose. The Executive Committee which took the decision challenged in the writ petition is the Executive: Committee contemplated in section 30. 10- Section 50 authorises the Central Board, in consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. The power takes in, particularly the power to frame regulations regarding formation of committees of the Central board and the delegation of powers and functions of the Central Board to such committees, as indicated in section 50 (2) (g). 11. By virtue of the power conferred under section 50 of the Act, State Bank of India General Regulations were framed in 1955. We are concerned with Regulation 46 and 47. Regulation 46 deals with constitution and powers of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is to consist of the Chairman, Vice-chairman, the Managing Directors, the Director nominated under section 19 (1) (f) and other Directors who are normally resident or present at any place within India in the area of the branch register within which area the meeting is held. Regulation 46 (2) state that - "Subject to the other provisions of these regulations and to such general or special directions as the Central Board may give from time to time, the Executive Committee may deal with any matter within the compe­tence of the Central Board." Regulation 47 deals with meetings of the Executive Committee. Regulation 47 (3) requires the minutes of every meeting of the Executive Committee to be laid before the Central Board as soon as possible after the meeting of the Executive Committee. 12. Going by section 43 of the Act, the terms and conditions of appoint­ment and service of officers and employees of State Bank are to be prescribed by the Bank. Under section 17 of the Act it is the Central Board which functions on behalf of the Bank. It was by virtue of such power that the Central Board issued the 1979 Order. Under section 17 of the Act it is the Central Board which functions on behalf of the Bank. It was by virtue of such power that the Central Board issued the 1979 Order. The Executive Committee can exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be imposed or delegated to it by the Central Board by virtue of section 30 of the Act. The delegation is seen provided in Regulation 46 (2), according to which the Executive Committee may deal with any matter within the competence of the Central Board. Reading section 17, 30 and 43 of the Act with Regulation 46 (2) of the Regu­lations, there can be no doubt that the power of prescribing terms and conditions of service of officers and employees of the State Bank of India can be exercised by the Executive Committee. The power to prescribe terms and conditions of appointment and service must necessarily comprehend within its scope the power to alter, modify or cancel such terms and conditions. There can therfore be no doubt that the Executive Committee has the power to bring about changes in the terms and conditions of appointment and service of officers and employees of the Bank. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Executive Committee has no such power is clearly unsustai­nable. The requirement that minutes of the Executive Committee should be placed before the Central Board at the earliest possible opportunity does not in any way detract from the amplitude of the power of the Executive Com­mittee. That requirement is only to ensure that the exercise of the power by the Executive Committee which is numerically a smaller body than the Central Board, is brought to the notice of the Central Board, so that, the Central Board may in its collective wisdom bring about such changes as it may deem fit. As long as the Central Board does not alter or change the action taken by the Executive Committee, such action stands and is legally valid. The writ petitioners has no case that the decision of the Executive Committee reflected in Annexure II to the writ petition was subsequently interfered with by the Central Board. 13. As long as the Central Board does not alter or change the action taken by the Executive Committee, such action stands and is legally valid. The writ petitioners has no case that the decision of the Executive Committee reflected in Annexure II to the writ petition was subsequently interfered with by the Central Board. 13. Shri NM Lahiri, learned counsel for the respondents in the appeal (writ petitioners) contended that the power conferred on the Executive Committee under Regulation 46 (2) is of a limited nature and cannot go against the power vested in the State Bank or the -Central Board under section 43 and if the provisions of the Regulations are construed as enabling the Executive Committee to change the terms and conditions of service framed by the Cen­tral Board the investiture of such power may not be lawful. We are unable to agree with the submission. That is because of the scheme of the management provided in the Act and the provisions in the Regulations. The delegation of power on the Executive Committee by the Central Board is contemplated by section 30 of the Act. The statute itself confers unlimited power o! delegation on the Central Board. The Board has so delegated all its powers to the Executive Committee by virtue of Regulation 46 (2). It cannot therefore be accepted that such i Delegation would be contrary to the statutory scheme. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the change brought about by the Executive Committee is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The relevant passages in the writ petition have been placed before us. We are unable to find any specific or clear ground taken in the writ petition. Of cause, the word 'arbitrary' occurs at more than one places in the writ petition but the basis of the alleged arbitrariness is not alleged in the writ petition. The impugned judgment also does not indicate that this contention was urged before the learned Single Judge. Even other­wise, we are not impressed by the submission that the restriction imposed by the Executive Committee to the effect that in areas where both the allowances are admissible only the higher allowance can be drawn, subject of course to personal protection to officers working at particular place during the duration of their holding office in that station, is arbitrary or unreasonable or irrational. The special area allowance is admissible in regard to such areas as are declared by the Central Board or the Executive Committee. So for as the hill and fuel allowance is concerned, the prescription is given on the basis of altitude. Both allowances are admissible only where an officer works at a particular place which is above the prescribed altitude and which is also a special area. The special area allowance is based on the nature of the area and the hill and fuel allowance is also dependent on nature of the area. It is not irrational to conclude that the former would include the latter where the place is one and the same. The writ petitioners have not been able to estab­lish any arbitrariness in the decision. 15. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. The writ appeal is allowed. Parties shall bear costs throughout.