JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to fix the basic salary of the petitioner at the stage of Rs. 860/- in the scale Rs. 700-1800/- and claims consequential benefits of such refixation. The claim is opposed by the Bank. Facts necessary for adjudication of the dispute stated briefly are as under. 2. The respondent-United Commercial Bank issued an advertisement on 16th October, 1978 inviting applications for the post of Field Officer on posts falling under Grade "D" subsequently termed Junior Management Scale I Post. At the time when this advertisement was issued, the revision of pay scales was under consideration as acceptance of Pillai Committee Report was pending consideration. It was, therefore, mentioned that the conditions of service are liable to be revised on the Pillai Committee Report coming into effect. 3. The Pillai Committee Report was accepted and was brought into effect from 1.7.1979. The petitioner was recruited as Agricultural Field Officer and was given appointment in the Bank's Junior Management Scale I on the terms mentioned in the order of appointment dated 19.5.1980. Scale I was Rs. 700-40-900-50-1100-EB-1200-60-1800. The petitioner accepted the appointment and claimed re-fixation. By a letter dated 1.12.1981 he was informed that he was appointed in a Junior Management Grade Scale I and, therefore, there is no question of revision in his basic pay. The petitioner, thereafter, in 1984 made yet another representation, seeking fixation in the grade of 700-1800 on the hypothesis that he was to be fixed at Rs. 455 in the scale of Rs. 325-950. This representation was also rejected. The present petition is filed in 1987, to be precise, on 3.10.1987, praying as aforesaid, fixation of the petitioner at Rs. 860/- in the scale of Rs. 700-1800/-. The petition is opposed on the following grounds which are raised as preliminary objections:- "(1) This Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter as the respondents function from Calcutta. The advertisement dated 16th October, 1978 was issued from Calcutta and therefore, the High Court of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction. (2) The petition is filed in 1987 and claims fixation from 1981. It is, therefore, inordinately delayed. (3) The claim arises out of contract of service between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank and no writ can, therefore, be maintained for enforcement of contractual relationship." 4. (2) The petition is filed in 1987 and claims fixation from 1981. It is, therefore, inordinately delayed. (3) The claim arises out of contract of service between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank and no writ can, therefore, be maintained for enforcement of contractual relationship." 4. In view of the fact that the petition is pending for last 10 years, I see no reason to reject it on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction or on the ground that it is enforcement of a contractual relationship. It is true that the petition is inordinately delayed but even on that ground I do not intend to throw this petition and I, therefore, over-rule the preliminary objection and proceed to decide on merits. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the advertisement dated 16.10.1978 having represented to the petitioner that the pay of the petitioner is likely to be revised in accordance with the Pillai Committee Report, he is entitled to re-fixation according to that Report. It is canvassed that the doctrine of reasonable expectation would apply. The petitioner reasonably expected implementation of the Pillai Committee Report in the matter of his pay fixation. It is then contended that having given it in the advertisement that the pay is likely to be revised, the respondent-Bank is estopped from not applying that scale after implementation of the Pillai Committee Report by application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Opposing the petition, it was contended by the learned counsel for the Bank that none of the contentions can arise in the present case. The petitioner has voluntarily accepted the appointment on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order dated 19th May, 1980 and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and requires to be dismissed. 6. It is true that the advertisement dated 16.10.1978 postulates revision of pay scale on acceptance of the Pillai Committee Report. There is no denying of the fact, therefore, that the petitioner could legitimately expect his salary to be revised in accordance with the recommendation of the Pillai Committee. However, the petitioner has blissfully ignored the factual position that this stipulation of revision, according to Pillai Committee Report put a basic rider to it, namely, acceptance of the Pillai Committee Report and appointment of the petitioner prior to such acceptance. The basic premise of the petitioner is, therefore, wrong. However, the petitioner has blissfully ignored the factual position that this stipulation of revision, according to Pillai Committee Report put a basic rider to it, namely, acceptance of the Pillai Committee Report and appointment of the petitioner prior to such acceptance. The basic premise of the petitioner is, therefore, wrong. The Pillai Committee Report was accepted with effect from 1.7.1979. The petitioner was appointed thereafter in the Junior Management Grade Scale I Rs. 700-1800, which factually was the scale recommended by the Pillai Committee itself and was given to the petitioner after acceptance and implementation of the Pillai Committee Report. There was, therefore, no occasion for revision and re- fixation of the petitioner in Bank's Junior Management Grade Scale-I Rs. 700-1800/-. The advertisement stipulated basic pay of Rs. 445/- in the Bank's Officer Grade "D" scale which was subject to revision according to the Pillai Committee Report. The Pillai Committee Report having been accepted and revision having been done, the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was made in the scale called Junior Management Grade Scale-I by the Bank. There was, therefore, no question of the petitioner being re-fixed in this scale at Rs. 860/-. The premise that the petitioner was offered appointment at Rs. 455/- in Grade "D" postulates his refixation in Junior Management Grade Scale-I accordingly is baseless. No such promise was ever made to the petitioner. 7. Ann. 3 on which reliance is placed for such fixation itself proves this position. It speaks of Fitment Chart of Officers in Grade "D" Junior Management Scale I as on 1.7.1979 and it talks of Officers in Grade "D" drawing basic pay as on 30.6.1979 at Rs. 455/- being effected into new Scale-I at Rs. 860/-. This pre-supposes drawing of that scale in June, 1979. The petitioner was not even in the employment of the Bank on 1.7.1979. The new scale Rs. 700-1800/- was implemented from 1.7.1979 and the petitioner was appointed in that scale on 19.5.1980. The claim, therefore, that had the petitioner been appointed prior to 1.7.1979, he would have been given the basic pay of Rs. 455/- and then a revision with effect from 1.7.1979, he would have been fixed at Rs. 860/-, is unsustainable in law because it is baseless and imaginary. There is, thus, no substance in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 455/- and then a revision with effect from 1.7.1979, he would have been fixed at Rs. 860/-, is unsustainable in law because it is baseless and imaginary. There is, thus, no substance in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In fact, the petitioner himself has stated in Anx. 5, a representation made by him in 1984, as under:-Offer of appointment as Agril. Field Officer : "When the offer of appointment was given after a lapse of over 1 years time, new grades and pay scale per recommendation of the Pillai Committee Report came into force and it was expected that the Bank would offer to me proper basic salary in the new grade after making corresponding fixation." The petitioner has, therefore, voluntarily accepted as a term of this appointment, the scale of Junior Management Grade-I Rs. 700-1800/- and has accepted the service in that scale at Rs. 700/-. The petitioner himself is, therefore, estopped from now claiming a revision had he expected such revision, because the appointment was delayed by 1 years, he had the opportunity to refuse the appointment. No vested right can be claimed by the petitioner for revision or re-fixation in view of the fact that the Pillai Committee Report was accepted on 1.7.1979, the scales were revised, the Bank Officer Grade "D" old scale was equated to Junior Management Grade Scale-I and the petitioner was given appointment in this new scale. His request for refixation was rejected way back in 1984. The writ petition is, thus, devoid of any substance and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted the following cases - (1) AIR 1994 SC 980 (or AIR 1994 SC 988 ) (2) AIR 1992 SC 3075 : (or 1992 AIR SCW 3075) in support of the contention that the revision or refixation of pay was a legitimate expectancy of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner is appointed, after implementation of the Pillai Committee in the scale recommended by the Pillai Committee, there is no question of such legitimate expectation. These decisions are, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner, Reliance is placed on 1996 Lab IC 599 : (1995 AIR SCW 4675) for the proposition that the delay in filing the petition is not fatal. I have already dismissed the objection regarding the delay. These decisions are, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner, Reliance is placed on 1996 Lab IC 599 : (1995 AIR SCW 4675) for the proposition that the delay in filing the petition is not fatal. I have already dismissed the objection regarding the delay. The petitioner has then cited the following authority : (1) 1983(3) SCC 293; (2) AIR 1989 SC 1642 , 1607; (3) (1990) 3 SCC 752 : ( AIR 1990 SC 1031 ); (4) AIR 1991 SC 537 ; (5) (1993) 1 JT (SC) 187 : (1993 AIR SCW 683); (6) AIR 1993 SC 1811; (7) (1994) 1 WLC 729 (Raj); (8) (1989) 4 JT (SC) 181 : (1990 Lab IC 136). 9. These authorities deal with maintainability of writ petition. Since I have decided the petition on merits, they have no application in the present case. 10. The following cases are cited for the proposition that on the basis of the principle of equitable estoppel, the Bank is estopped from denying to the petitioner the refixation in accordance with the Pillai Committee Report:- (1) AIR 1987 SC 2414 , (2) AIR 1988 SC 1247 ; (3) (1995) 6 JT (SC) 485 : (1995 AIR SCW 3847); (4) (1992) 2 SCC 411 : ( AIR 1992 SC 1075 ). However, these cases have no application to the facts of the present case as the appointment of the petitioner on 19.5.1980 itself was in accordance with the Pillai Committee Report, in the scale of Junior Management Grade Scale-I, Rs. 700-1800.In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 500/-. Petition dismissed. *******