Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. -this writ petition has been filed by the ten-petitioners for quashing the office order passed by the National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Bihar, Assam and orissa) Limited which is dated 4-7-1994. By the said order the Divisional manager, Patna of National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Bihar, Assam and Orissa) Limited (hereinafter called the said N. T. C.) kept in abeyance office order No.1383 dated 22-6- 1994 till further instruction from Calcutta Corporate Office vide D. O. Letter No.856, dated 1-7-1994 received from the Director (Personnel), N. TC. (W. B. A. B. and O)Limited. 2. The relevant facts in this case are as follows: the petitioners are complaining that they are being treated in a discriminatory manner in the matter of grant of House rent Allowance. The petitioners are working as Salesman, Senior Salesman and Shop manager in the N. TC. Marketing Division, patna. The Corporate Office of the N. TC, which has been referred to as the Respondent corporation, is located at Calcutta and the Divisional Headquarters are at guwahati, Patna, Calcutta and Bhubaneshwar. 3. The case of the petitioners is that on 9-2-1994 negotiations were held between the representatives of the respondent Corporation and the employee under the Patna Divisional office. The Respondent Corporation was represented by the Director (Personnel) and Deputy General Manager, retail Marketing Division, Calcutta and the employees were represented by their authorised representatives. It is stated that as a result of such negotiation, certain agreements were arrived at. In regard to the House Rent Allowance (hereinafter called as the H. R. A.) it was decided that H. R. A. at the rate of 5 per cent, of the wages of the employees working under the Patna Divisional Office would be paid from 1-1-1994. The petitioners case is that pursuant to such negotiations, an agreement was entered into. Thereafter by an order dated 22-6-1994 issued by the Divisional Office of the said Corporation at Patna it was stated that sanction for granting of house Rent Allowance to its employees of the showrooms of Patna Marketing division at the rate of five per cent, of their wages with effect from 1st January, 1994 is accorded since the minutes of the meeting has been signed by the representatives of the concerned Unions. It was further made clear in the said office order that the enhanced H. R. A. at the rate of 5 per cent on their wages will be added from the month of June, 94 and the arrear from January, 1994 to May, 1994 will be paid to the show room employees in three instalments subject to availability of funds. But before any payment could be made, comes the impugned order which is Annexure-2 dated 4-7-1994 issued by the Divisional manager, Retail Marketing Division, patna in which it was stated that the payment of House Rent Allowance released in the Division vide Office order No.1383, dated 22-6-1994 has been kept in abeyance till further instruction from Calcutta Corporate office. This order has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. 4. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners, it has been further stated that the employees of Calcutta and guwahati Offices will receive the h. R. A. at the rate of 5 per cent but the same treatment is not being accorded to its Patna employees even though the employees of the Patna Division are similarly situated and similarly placed as the employee of Calcutta and Guwahati division. 5. In the counter-affidavit used in this proceeding by the Respondent Corporation it has been stated in paragraph 5 that the decision which has been communicated to the petitioners by letter dated 22-6-1994 was merely a proposal to pay H. R. A. The same cannot be treated to be a decision. It has been further stated that the minutes of the discussions were not approved by the chairman-cum-Managing Director of the N. T. C. and they are not signed either by the Director (Personnel) and the deputy General Manager (Retail marketing Division ). Therefore, a contention has been raised that unless the minutes are signed by all concerned, it has no legal force and it is not enforceable. Along with the counter-affidavit, the minute of discussions has been disclosed. Therefore, a contention has been raised that unless the minutes are signed by all concerned, it has no legal force and it is not enforceable. Along with the counter-affidavit, the minute of discussions has been disclosed. From a perusal of the said minutes it appears that the said meeting was attended by the Director (Personnel), Deputy General Manager (Marketing), Divisional Manager, marketing Division, Patna, Assistant manager (HRD) Marketing Division, patna and the relevant minutes about the demand of H. R. A. appears at paragraph 5-A of the said Minutes and the said Minutes are set out below: "demand at 3 (i), i. e. payment of h. R. A. to Salesforce staff of Patna Mktg. Division at part with Calcutta and Guwahati marketing Division; the Unions demanded that for the sake of uniformity the rate of HRA that is being paid to the employees of Guwahati and Calcutta Marketing Division should also be extended to the employees of Patna marketing Division. After a prolonged discussion on the issue, it was agreed that the employees of Patna Marketing Division will be paid HRA at the rate of 5% of wages with effect from 1-1-1994. " 6. The other ground which has been put forward in support of the fact that the employees of Calcutta office were paid the said H. R. A stands on a different footing is that the employees of Calcutta office are being paid H. R. A. in view of the statutory requirement made under the local law being West bengal Act 56 of 1974. The said Act is known as the West Bengal Workmens house- Rent Allowance Act, 1974. The case made out on behalf of the respondent Corporation in the counter-affidavit is that on the strength of the said act and particularly Sec.4 thereof, the respondent Corporation is bound to pay to the employees of West Bengal the h. R. A. in order to comply with the provisions of the said Act. 7. So far as the question of payment of H. R. A. to the employees of guwahati office is concerned, the justification which has been put forward is that such payment is made on the basis of the agreement between the employees of Guwahati Division and the management of the said respondent corporation. 7. So far as the question of payment of H. R. A. to the employees of guwahati office is concerned, the justification which has been put forward is that such payment is made on the basis of the agreement between the employees of Guwahati Division and the management of the said respondent corporation. It has been stated that the employees of Guwahati Division have agreed to work on one additional day during the week as also for the rationalisation and/or closure of certain show rooms which are running into losses. They have also agreed for the transfer of its employees to other Division so that the working of Guwahati marketing division could be made viable and economically profitable, but as the employees of Patna Division are not agreeing to such suggestion, the demand of such H. R. A. is not being granted to the petitioners. Apart from the aforesaid affidavit, the respondent Corporation has also used two other supplementary counter affidavits. In those counter affidavits, it has been stated that the Board of management of the respondent Corporation has approved in principle in favour of withdrawing the house-rent allowance given to the employees of the said Corporation and the Regional Managing Director, guwahati is awaiting clearance from the holding Company for such withdrawal. He has, however, stated that the said respondent Corporation is suffering from substantial loss and for that reason, by paying H. R. A. They cannot incur further financial burden. In a further supplementary counter-affidavit the respondents Corporation have said that various references are pending adjudication before the Industrial tribunal, Patna, under the Industrial disputes Act between the employees of the N. T. C. and the Management and such matters of grant of H. R. A. will also cover the same. Therefore, in that view of the matter, this writ-petition is not maintainable. 8. Considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court is of the view that the pleas put forward by the respondent Corporation in not granting h. R. A. to the petitioners are discriminatory and they cannot be sustained in the eye of law. One thing is clear that the employees of the said corporation in its Calcutta and guwahati divisions are receiving H. R. A. Therefore, not giving the same benefit to the employees of Patna Division is, prima facie, discriminatory in nature. The responde. One thing is clear that the employees of the said corporation in its Calcutta and guwahati divisions are receiving H. R. A. Therefore, not giving the same benefit to the employees of Patna Division is, prima facie, discriminatory in nature. The responde. Corporation has tried to justify their action on the very basis of certain pleas, namely, that payment of H. R. A given to the employees of calcutta is in view of the statutory provisions and that the payment of h. R. A. to the employees of Guwahati division is in view of the agreement. Those pleas are not at all acceptable to this Court. The plea of financial crunch is a thing over which the Court refrains from making any comment. 9. It is no doubt true that being burdened by such financial crunch, the management of the said Corporation held a meeting with the representatives of the employees of Patna Division and on the basis of the minutes of the said meeting, it appears that they have come to an agreement for payment of H. R. A. at the rate of 5 per cent of the wages to the employees of Patna division. 10. The said meeting was attended by the Director (Personnel), Deputy general Manager (Marketing), divisional Manager, Marketing division, Patna, Assistant Manager (HRD), Marketing Division, Patna and they were, therefore, parties to the decision. The fact that they have not signed the minute of the meeting does not, in any way, alter the decision taken in the meeting. The law relating to the meeting is clear on the point that once a decision is taken and minuted, the fact that they are not signed does not change the nature and character of the decision. It is nobodys case that what has been minuted in the said meeting, in so far as the payment of house-rent allowance is concerned, does not reflect the decision which was taken in the meeting. In other words, the respondent Corporation did not suggest that the decision as minuted was not taken in the said meeting. They are relying merely on two reasons, firstly that the decisions are in the nature of proposal and they have not been signed by the Director (Personnel) and Deputy General Manager (Retail Marketing Division) of the respondent Corporation. Further plea is that such proposals have not been approved by the Board. They are relying merely on two reasons, firstly that the decisions are in the nature of proposal and they have not been signed by the Director (Personnel) and Deputy General Manager (Retail Marketing Division) of the respondent Corporation. Further plea is that such proposals have not been approved by the Board. The Officers who were present in the meeting representing the Management were authorised and competent to represent the management. Therefore, the management of the respondent Corporation was a party to those decisions. They cannot, at the time of implementing the decision, raise the plea that as the decision has not been allegedly approved by the Board, they are of no effect. 11. Apart from the fact that this matter can be looked into from another angle that by taking the said decision in the meeting and by communicating the same by an office order, the respondent corporation has taken a firm stand and the stand to which they are committed by the issuance of the office order dated 22-6-1994, cannot be altered at the sweet will of the management. 12. The respondent Corporation is an Authority within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus it has to act as a model employer. When it takes a stand relating to grant of certain benefits to its employees and communicates the said stand, the same gives rise to certain legitimate expectations and if those expectations are belied and are given a go-bye, it becomes a clear where the management is acting in a high-handedness and arbitrary manner. Any high-handedness and arbitrary action on the part of the management of the respondent Corporation is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the facts of this case both the limbs of Article 14 of the Constitution are attracted. In the first place the impugned order is discriminatory inasmuch as it treats the employees of Patna division with a hostile discrimination without any rational basis for the same. Therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Apart from that the impugned order itself and the action of the respondents are highly arbitrary and high-handed in character. This also is violative of inherent guarantee under article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Apart from that the impugned order itself and the action of the respondents are highly arbitrary and high-handed in character. This also is violative of inherent guarantee under article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the view that the matter relating to H. R. A. is not covered under the References which have been mentioned in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. It is obvious that no such industrial dispute in this case does arise for payment of h. R. A. inasmuch as the management has agreed to pay the same and issued an office order. Therefore, there does not and cannot exist any dispute between the parties. The Management once having agreed to pay the same, the subsequent letter of the Management to go back upon its words is wholly contrary to all norms of fairness and the doctrine of legitimate expectations, as has been propounded by the Apex court in its several judgements. 14. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners ought not to come to this Court inasmuch as the impugned order at Annexure-2 is not final, but this court is unable to accept the said contention having regard to the stand taken by the learned Counsel in his submission and also the stand taken by the respondent Corporation in its counter-affidavit. From the counter affidavit it is clear that the management of the respondent Corporation has clearly taken a stand of not granting H. R. A. to the employees of Patna Division. Therefore, the plea of keeping the decision dated 22-6-1994 in abeyance is also not a justified plea. The same has come merely as a pretence. 15. The magnitude of the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution has been highlighted by the Apex Court in a series of judgments and in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. I. C. of India and another v. Consumer Education and Reserach centre and others reported in A. I. R.1995 S. C. page 1811 the said question has been further highlighted. In elaborating the principle behind Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of classification, the learned judges of the Hon ble Supreme Court were pleased to observe in paragraph 29 at page 1822 as follows : "the doctrine of classification is only a subsidiary rule evolved by the Courts to give practical content to the doctrine of equality, over emphasis on the doctrine of classification or anxious or sustained attempt to discover some basis for classification may gradually and imperceptibly erode the profound potency of the glorious content of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The over emphasis on classification would inevitably would result in substitution of the doctrine of classification to the doctrine of equality and the Preamble of the constitution which is an integral part and scheme of the Constitution. Menaka Gandhi ratio extricated it from this moribund and put its elasticity for egalitarian path finder. Lest, the classification would deny equality to the larger segments of the society. " 16. Judging by the aforesaid principle, this Court cannot accept the so-called rational basis for classification advanced in this case by the respondent corporation in treating the employees of Calcutta Division and Guwahati division differently than the Patna division. 17. This writ petition thus succeeds. The impugned order dated 4-7-1994 is hereby quashed. There will be no order as to cost. The respondents corporation are hereby directed to act in terms of its decision which is communicated vide office order dated 22-6-1994 and implement the same prospectively from the month of September, 1996. Petition Allowed.