Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The petitioners in the present writ application pray for issuance of an appropriate writ/order quashing of the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) Personnel Division Circular no.1313 dated 12.12.1991, as contained in Annexure 5, whereby the respondent bank has decided to scale down the salary of petitioner No.2, Manoj kumar, and other similarly situated persons duly fitted upon being promoted to junior Management Grade Scale-I (hereinafter referred to as "j. M. G. Scale-I") and also the letter dated 13.5.1996, as contained in Annexure 6, issued by the Senior Manager of the bank in Regional Office, Patna reviewing the salary of the petitioner No.2 in terms of the aforementioned Circular dated 12.12.1991 putting him to a loss of one increment. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that petitioner No.1, claims to be affiliated to AIBOC, is represented through its Assistant Secretary, Bihar zone, Patna and petitioner No.2 claims that he was initially appointed in the Bank as Clerk on which post he joined on 26.12.1978. On 3.7.1980 a memorandum of Settlement was arrived at between the Management of the Bank and All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (hereinafter referred to as the federation) regarding the procedure and policy concerning promotion of clerks and Special Assistants as Officers and direct recruitment of Officers and related matters. The petitioners herein claim to be concerned with the promotion of Clerk as Officer. 3. It is stated that according to the terms of the said Settlement, the assessment and notification of the vacancies "for the posts of "accountant" now changed as "officer" are to be estimated from January to December in advance before the process of filling up the same starts and the Head Office was/is to assess the anticipated vacancies and notify it to the Federation by a letter. Any variation in the notified vacancies till test for selection was/is held is also to be intimated to the Federation, whereafter the variation can be made only up to 10% of the anticipated vacancies at the time of actual filling up of the same. 4. It appears that thereafter under the Settlement dated 8.9.1983 entered at industry level between the Management of 58 banks as represented by Indian banks Association and their workmen represented by AIBEA/ncbe, it was agreed upon to grant stagnation increments to the employees, both in non-subordinate cadre, effective from 1.1.1980. 4. It appears that thereafter under the Settlement dated 8.9.1983 entered at industry level between the Management of 58 banks as represented by Indian banks Association and their workmen represented by AIBEA/ncbe, it was agreed upon to grant stagnation increments to the employees, both in non-subordinate cadre, effective from 1.1.1980. Pursuant thereto a demand was raised by the Federation for re-fixation of the salary of those employees in clerical Cadre, including Special assistants promoted to JMG Scale-1. A settlement dated 30th March, 1984 was signed before the Regional Labour commissioner (Central), Government of India. The Federation, vide letter dated 27th December, 1984, addressed to the Chief Labour Commissioner, raised another demand as to the re-fixation of salary of those employees in clerical Cadre, including Special Assistants promoted as Accountants in j. M. G. Scale-I after 1.7.1979 in accordance with the guidelines issued by the indian Banks Association. The Joint chief Labour Commissioner intervened in the matter and held conciliation proceedings and a settlement was signed on 4.1.1985, under Clause 10 of which it was agreed that the pay scales of such employees were revised, but the pay scale applicable to Officers was not revised and the parties agreed to discuss, and revise the fitment formula. Later, the pay scales of officers staff were revised with effect from 1.2.1984, whereafter the Federation again raised a demand before the Chief Labour commissioner (Central), vide letter dated 22.2.1986, which was seized into conciliation and finally the dispute was settled, vide settlement dated 12.3.1986. Later the pay scales of workmen employees were revised with effect from 1.11.1987, vide industry level 5th Bipartite settlement dated 10.4.1989 and also the pay scales of Officers were revised by the Board of Directors on 7.3.1990. 5. The petitioners state that in the year 1986, in the entire country, there were 459 vacancies of the officers in j. M. G. Scale-I available in the Bank. The said vacancies were to be filled up from among the Special Assistants and senior Clerks on the basis of Seniority-cum-absence of the demerit and interview. Out of 459 vacancies, 102 vacancies were earmarked to be filled up in Bihar Zone through the above mentioned process. Some promotions of Special Assistants were made and balance 63 vacancies remained unfilled for the year 1986. 6. Out of 459 vacancies, 102 vacancies were earmarked to be filled up in Bihar Zone through the above mentioned process. Some promotions of Special Assistants were made and balance 63 vacancies remained unfilled for the year 1986. 6. According to the case of the respondents in the counter-affidavit, in bihar Zone promotion exercise could not be taken up at the material time, since the priority list of Clerks was under preparation and finalisation thereof could not be done prior to 1987. According to the respondents, the promotion matter was, thus, discussed between the Management of the Bank and its Officers Federation during the central Industrial Relation Machinery meeting and a written understanding was arrived, vide minutes of understanding dated 26th/27th April, 1988, in which it was agreed that the aforesaid vacancies be filled up by 31st August, 1988 from amongst the eligible candidates on the basis of the priority list as on 1.1.1986 as a special case and one time exercise. It is stated that it was agreed that on promotion , the salary as well as the perks of the promoted post shall be payable from the date of taking over of the new assignment as an Officer in J. M. G. Scale-I. However, the notional seniority was decided to be given to them along with the batch of officers outside Bihar Zone, who were promoted in J. M. G. Scale-I in 1986 through the above process. 7. The admitted case of the parties is that petitioner No.2, who was one of the senior Clerks, was considered for promotion along with others and was granted promotion in J. M. G. Scale-I, i. e. , Rs.1175-2675/-, vide letter dated 1st september, 1988, contained in An-nexure 2. Pursuant to the said offer of appointment, the order of posting of petitioner No.2 was issued on 8.9.1988, vide Annexure 3, in which Rs.1415/- was mentioned as the basic-pay on fixation of his pay on account of said promotion and, further, it was mentioned therein that he would draw his next increment on 1st December, 1988. Later, vide regional Managers letter No.2037 dated 6.11.1990 (Annexure 4), petitioner No.2 was communicated that he had been promoted to J. M. G. Scale_i on 8.9.1988 against the seniority quota* of 1986 and that he would be given the notional seniority in his present scale of J. M. G. Scale_l with effect from 7.7.1986 instead of 8.9.1988. Later, vide regional Managers letter No.2037 dated 6.11.1990 (Annexure 4), petitioner No.2 was communicated that he had been promoted to J. M. G. Scale_i on 8.9.1988 against the seniority quota* of 1986 and that he would be given the notional seniority in his present scale of J. M. G. Scale_l with effect from 7.7.1986 instead of 8.9.1988. However, according to the said letter, the salary as well as the perks were made available tc petitioner no.2 from the date of his taking over the new assignment. 8. It is alleged by the petitioners that such employees of the Bank had to suffer huge monetary loss due to the fault of the respondents though un-disputedly throughout they functioned to the utmost satisfaction of their superiors only because they were given the promotion mote than two years later than it was due. It is alleged that another sudden jolt came, vide impugned Personnel Division Circular No.1313 dated 12.12.1991, intending to scale down the salary of petitioner No.2 and other similarly situate who were duly fitted upor being promoted to j. M. G Scale-1, treating them as appointees of the year 1988, though earlier were promoted against the vacancies of the year 1986 and also given the notional seniority from 7.7.1986. A photo copy of said Personnel Division Circular has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The said Circular was not given effect to but recently the Senior manager, Personnel Section of the Bank (respondent No.7), vide impugned letter dated 13.5.1996, contained in annexure 6, revised the fitment of petitioner No.2 which was given to him in the year 1988, in terms of 1991 Circular and thereby petitioner No.2 has been put to a loss of Rs.120/- in basic, i. e. one increment by revision of fitment pursuant to Annexure 5. 9. 9. It is contended that the said action of the respondent Bank is ultra vires Articles 14, 16 (1) and 300-A of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Clerks posted in all other States of india except Bihar similarly situate as that of petitioner No.2 and others were promoted as Officer in J. M. G. Scale-I in the year 1986 and were given salary and perks of the said post since 1986 whereas petitioner No.2 and others have been arbitrarily deprived of even fitment of the scale besides the monetary benefit of promotion from 1986 due to the fault of the Banks authorities by application of 1991 Circular by scaling down the pay scale as well as the salary which they were drawing. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the application of the aforesaid Circular, claim to have filed representation on 22.4.1996 before the Regional manager of Bank of Patna Region protesting against the scaling down of pay, but till date nothing positive has been done by the respondent Bank; hence this writ application. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents Bank it is stated that the demand of the Officers association of the Bank for fitment of the scale of those promoted in the year 1988 on the basis of the initial settlement informed in the year 1986 was not accepted by the respondent Bank for the reason that such officers, including the petitioners, who were promoted in the year 1988, were already drawing the salary in the clerical cadre up to their actual date of promotion in 1988 as provided under 5th Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.1989 effective from 1.11.1987 and thereby they had also "received the arrears of difference of -.- salary between the pay scale under the 4th Bipartite Settlement dated 17.9.84 and 5th Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.1989 which became effective from 1.11.1987 as Cleric. In other words, according to the respondents, the petitioner No.2 and such other officers have availed all the benefits as per the above settlement which was not avail-able in the year 1986, against which year of vacancies they have been promoted. In other words, according to the respondents, the petitioner No.2 and such other officers have availed all the benefits as per the above settlement which was not avail-able in the year 1986, against which year of vacancies they have been promoted. It is; thus, submitted that the petitioners, who were drawing wages in terms of the 5th Bipartite Settlement immediately prior to their promotion in J. M. G. Scale-I, are not justified to claim new fitment of salary v on the basis of the formula based on 4th Bipartite Settlement which was modified by 5th Bipartite Settlement. It is further submitted that the petitioners except for the notional seniority with effect from 1986 were promoted as Officer for all practical purposes in the year 1988 and, therefore, 1991 Circular was valid and applicable to the petitioners, which has been given effect, to, vide letter dated 13.5.1996 (Annexure 6 ). It is also submitted that since the claim of the petitioners is based on the minutes of understanding signed by the Management of the Bank with the Federation during CIRM meeting which has binding force and provides that in case of j any doubt in the interpretation of the provisions of the said understanding, the same has to be clarified between the parties at the head office level of the respondent Eank, the writ application at the instance of the petitioners is not maintainable. Thus, according to the respondent Bank, the writ application has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the attack on the impugned 1991 Circular is not tenable as the challenge to the said Circular was the subject-matter in the earlier writ application filed by several employees of the respondent bank and this Court declined to interfere, vide order dated 2.4.1993, a true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure A. 11. In the counter-affidavit an objection has also been taken about maintainability of the writ petition on account of availability of alternative internal remedy under clause 10 Industrial settlement dated 10.12.1991 which, according to the respondents, provides the forum for discussions and settlement between the management and the federation in addition to the right to avail the remedies provided under the industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 12. 12. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners it is stated that the respondent Bank is adopting pick and choose method in applying the aforesaid Circular as the same has not yet been applied upon all the candidates who were promoted along with the writ petitioners. It has been applied only upon the candidates who are not favourites of the management. As regards the stand of the Bank that the proposed settlement is applicable to him also, it is contended that the said settlement was entered with the Federation in the year 1991 and, according to their own case, is applicable to the workmen whereas petitioner No.2 after his promotion in the year 1988 ceased to be the workman and became the member of All India Punjab National bank Officers Association. Thus, according to the petitioners, the said agreement signed by the employees federation cannot be applied to the members of the petitioners Association and the action of the Bank in applying it on them also is highly arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. It is also contended that at any rate, no association can enter into any agreement which is prejudicial to the interest of its members. Moreover, according to the petitioners, the settlement referred to in the paragraphs under reply do not speak that the fitment once made by the management may be withdrawn and the candidate would be denied of the benefits/perks extended under earlier settlement. 13. As regards the stand in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners, who were drawing wages in terms of the 5th Bipartite Settlement immediately prior to their promotion in J. M. G. Scale- I, are not justified to claim fitment of salary on the basis of the formula based on 4th Bipartite Settlement which was modified by the 5th Bipartite settlement, it is contended that the respondent Bank aribtrarily deprived the petitioners of their salary and perks in J. M. G. Scale-I during the period 7.7.1986 to 8.9.1988 and as such, petitioner No.2 was justified in drawing the salary of the afare said intervening period as per the 5th Bipartite Settlement inasmuch as the respondent. Bank wants to deprive petitioner No.2 and other similarly situate of their salary as an officer for the intervening period 7.7.1986 to 8.9.1988 as well as the benefit of enhanced salary as Clerk for the said period during which they except for the purpose of notional seniority have been treated as Clerk. 14. A rejoinder to the said reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank in which it is reiterated that the petitioners are not justified in challenging the 1991 circular as it is binding on them under Sec.18 of the Act. It is further contended that petitioner No.2 is not entitled for fitment of salary as an officer in terms of the old settlement dated 12.3.1986, which was subsequently replaced by the settlement dated 10.12.1991 with effect from 1.11.1987. As such, according to the respondent bank, petitioner No.2 was entitled to get the salary as Officer in terms of the said settlement dated 10.12.1991 which was made applicable with retrospective effect from 1.11.1987. In paragraph 6 it is stated that petitioner No.2 and other similarly situated persons were given notional seniority from the date in the year 1986 for the purpose of seniority alone and not for any monetary benefit. As such, the settlement of the year 1991 which has been applied with retrospective effect from 1.11.1987 was binding on the petitioners under the Act. As regards petitioner no.1, it is contended that it being the Officers Association has no locus standi to sponsor and agitate the cause of an employee for the benefit flowing in his favour under the industrial Settlement while the concerned employee was a workman. 15. As regards petitioner no.1, it is contended that it being the Officers Association has no locus standi to sponsor and agitate the cause of an employee for the benefit flowing in his favour under the industrial Settlement while the concerned employee was a workman. 15. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned circular which apparently adversely affects the emoluments which the petitioners have been drawing after fitment in Officer Grade is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 (1) and 300-A of the Constitution of india inasmuch as the Clerks posted in all other States of India similarly situate as that of petitioner No.2 were promoted as Officer in J. M. G. Scale-I in the year 1986 and were given salary and perks of the said post since 1986 whereas those similarly situated in bihar were denied the monetary benefit of promotion given to them in the year 1988 from date, i. e. , 7.7.1986, admittedly, on account of the fault of the Banks authorities and now they are being illegally and arbitrarily denied of their fitment in the Officers Cadre under the impugned 1991 Circular and thereby have been put to a loss of Rs.120/- per month without any valid justification and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 16. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners having accepted the promotion pursuant to the settlement arrived on 26th/27th April, 1988 and also got the fitment of salary in Officer grade as per the settlement dated 12.3.1986 which was revised as per the said settlement and at the same time, received the arrears on account of revision of salary as per the Industrial settlement dated 10.4.1989 effective from 1.11.1987 till the date of his actual promotion, i. e. , 8.9.1988 also, the impugned conciliation settlement dated 10.12.1991 issued vide Circular dated 12.12.1991 providing refitment of salary with effect from 1.11.1987 is justified and not arbitrary as alleged. It was contended by him that petitioner No.2 and other similarly situate are bound by the settlement dated 10.12.1991 circulated vide impugned Circular. dated 12.12.1991 (Annexure 5) as under Sec-- tion 18 of the Act it is binding on each and every employee of the Bank. It was contended by him that petitioner No.2 and other similarly situate are bound by the settlement dated 10.12.1991 circulated vide impugned Circular. dated 12.12.1991 (Annexure 5) as under Sec-- tion 18 of the Act it is binding on each and every employee of the Bank. It was also contended by him that petitioner no.1, being an Association of Officers, has no right to interfere or challenge the settlements arrived at between the workmen through their Association/federation which alone could come to this Court to challenge the settle-ment or place any grievance on behalf of the workmen at large. , Learned Counsel also raised objection regarding maintainability of this writ-application on the ground of availability of internalal ternative remedy. It was also contended by Mr. Sinha that the attack on the impugned 1991 Circular is not tenable as v the challenge to the said Circular was the subject-matter in the earlier writ application (C. W. J. C. No.2506 of 1992)filed by several employees of the respondent Bank and this Court declined to interfere, vide order dated 2.4.1993, contained in Annexure A to the counter-affidavit. 17. I do not find any substance in the last submission of the learned coun-sel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is true that the impugned 1991 Circular might have come up for consideration before this Court earlier in the aforesaid writ case, but from the order, contained in Annexure A, I find that the said matter was hot decided on merit. The writ application was, in fact, al-lowed to be withdrawn to take recourse to internal remedy first. It is not alleged that petitioner No.2 was party to the said writ petition nor it is disputed that the cause of action for him only arose after the letter dated 13.5,19% (Annexure 6) was issued, whereafter the petitioner -availed the internal remedy by filing representation on 22.4.1996 (Annexure 7 ). However, when, no action was taken on the said representation and deductions were going to be made from the salary,the present writ application was fied on 21.5.1996. Further, from the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners it appears that the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the employees of the Bank who were promoted during 1989 or onwards against 1987 vacancies as the Management had not given any notional seniority. Further, from the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners it appears that the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the employees of the Bank who were promoted during 1989 or onwards against 1987 vacancies as the Management had not given any notional seniority. Thus, the present writ application, in my opinion, cannot be thrown out on the above ground. 18. I do not find any substance in the objection on the question of maintainability of the writ application on account of availability of internal/ alternative remedy. By, now, it is well settled that the writ jurisdiction of the high Court is not ousted merely on account of availability of internal remedy/ alternative remedy. It is purely within the discretion of the High Court to exercise or refuse to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of alternative remedy in the facts and circumstances of a given case, but does not oust the jurisdiction of the writ Court. 19. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank justifying the impugned 1991 Circular in so far as it relates to persons like petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.2 and other similarly situate were denied of the monetary benefit for the period 7.7.1986 to 8.9.1988 only on the ground that they got their actual promotion in the Officer Grade on 8.9.1988 though, admittedly, was due in the year 1986 itself, as per the 1986 settlement, but were kept deprived of the same on account of the fault of the authorities in the Bank. Later, however, under the settlement dated 10.4.1989 whereby the pay scales of the employees were revised with effect from 1.11.1987, the petitioners derived the benefits arising therefrom till the date of their promotion in the officer Grade as the Bank for all practical purposes except for notional seniority treated them to be in the clerical Grade till they got actual promotion on 8.9.1988. Thereafter, there was a fitment of the pay scale in the Officers Grade pursuant to the order contained in Annexure 4. Now by virtue of the impugned circular, the fit-ment of the scale of the petitioners is being sought to be made, vide Annexure 6, on the basis of. Thereafter, there was a fitment of the pay scale in the Officers Grade pursuant to the order contained in Annexure 4. Now by virtue of the impugned circular, the fit-ment of the scale of the petitioners is being sought to be made, vide Annexure 6, on the basis of. Rs.990/- as basic pay in the clerical cadre immediately before the promotion and thereby granting corresponding fitment in the clerical cadre in terms of 5th Bipartite Settlement at Rs.1810/- and consequently fitment in the Officer cadre in terms of the impugned circular at Rs.2340/- and thereby completely excluding the increments during the period 7.7.1986 to 8.9.1988 since when they have been granted promotion, but without any monetary benefit and also, at the same time, denying the benefit which the petitioners have already got as Clerk since 1.11.1987 under the 5th Bipartite settlement leading to consequential recovery being made, besides loss of rs.120/- per month as paragraph 8 of 1991 Circular. 20. This Court in the case of Sud-hanshu Kumar Sinha V/s. Punjab National bank and others (C. W. J. C No.3937 of 1989 disposed of on 20.9.1989) took notice of the fact that for removal of difficulties, on 26th/27th April, 1988 an agreement was arrived that the vacancies would be filled up by 31st August, 1988 out of the Senior Clerks on the basis of priority marks as on 1.1.1986 and the said priority list shall be operative only up to 31st August, 1988, for the specific and exclusive purpose of selection by way of one time exercise for the purpose of filling up unfilled vacancies of Officers in J. M. G Scale-I confined to the State of Bihar. This Court also took notice of the fact that the salary and perks arising out of the promotion to the Officer cadre will be available from the date of taking over of the new assignment as Officer, but their seniority will be protected and they will be given notional seniority along with the batch of Officers who were promoted to J. M. G. Scale I in 1986 and was further agreed that all other terms and conditions of the settlement dated 16.6.1973 and 7.3.1978, as amended, would remain unchanged and will be applicable for selection of Senior Clerks as officers in J. M. G. Scale-I. 21. In the said case argument on behalf of the petitioner was that the settlement of 1988 was not binding upon him as it is not a conciliation settlement but at best it is an agreement which was not accepted and this Court held it to be binding on the petitioner and that it would be deemed to be part and parcel of the conciliation settlement dated 7.3.1978. Accordingly, this Court held that the petitioner having accepted his promotion which was pursuant to the settlement and the clarification, cannot be allowed to challenge some of the terms and conditions of the promotion by way of a writ-petition. He ought to have desisted from accepting the promotion and impeached the offer of promotion but he cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. It was further held that the petitioner had not rendered the job of junior management during the period 1986-88, but that of a clerk only. He cannot, therefore, be entitled to salary of a Manager during the period when actually worked as a Clerk. 22. Thus, even according to the said Division Bench judgment of this court, such employees who were promoted in the Junior Management grade by virtue of 1988 Settlement were entitled for the salary of Clerk during the period 1986 to 1988 when they rendered the job of Clerk. Admittedly, the petitioner No.2 availed the benefit of salary of the Clerk,as per the 5th bipartite Settlement only for the period when actually he worked as a Clerk, i. e. from 1.11.1987 till he was actually promoted in the Office Grade of J. M. G. Scale-I on 8.9.1988 and not during the period when he drew the salary in Office grade. Thus, in my opinion, the petitioners have been put to double jeopardy under the impugned Circular as neither they have been allowed the benefit which was available to the Clerical Grade till their actual promotion on 8.9.1988 and the consequential fitment in the Officer Grade after 8.9.1988 as well as the actual benefit in the Officer grade from due date in the year 1986 till 8.9.1988 solely on account of the fault on the part of the Banks authorities. In my opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioners deceive to the granted option for either electing to avail the benefit of the Clerical Grade till the date of their actual promotion and consequential fitment there after or the benefit which other similarly ituated got from the year 1986 when hey were granted promotion. Any other action by the authorities in the respondent Bank, in my opinion, would be ar-bitrary and discriminatory in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in which the admitted position in that, in Bihar zone the promotion exercise could not be taken up at the material time in the year 1986 along with the persons posted in other states as the priority list of aforesaid clerks was under preparation and finalisation thereof could not be done prior to 1987 only whereafter they were given due promotion on 8.9.1988 from the due date, i. e. ,7.7.1986, but without any monetary benefit. 23. I do not find any substance in the bald submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that all settlements arrived at between the federation and the Management of the bank would bind all the employees irrespective of the same being prejudicial to any individual employee,particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where 1991 Circular has not been issued by virtue of the settlement arrived at on concilliation under the provisions of the Act. In fact, it was merely a memorandum of understanding arrived at between the Federation and the Management of the Bank which, in my opinion, could not supersede the settlement of the year 1986 which was arrived at on due conciliation under the provisions of the Act under which the petitioners were entitled for promotion in the year 1986 itself. 24. Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the respondents are restrained from making any reduction under the garb of fitment by virtue of 1991 Circular and from making the recovery as a consequence there of from the salary of the petitioners. In the result, the writ-application is allowed, but without costs. Petition Allowed.