Order Dr. J.N. Dubey, J. In view of the order dated 20.2.97 passed in CWIC No. 192 of 1996 these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. It appears that in 1975 President of India promulgated an ordinance for setting up Regional Rural Banks (for short R.R.B) in the country. The Ordinance was replaced by Regional Rural Bank Act of 1976. The Act inter alia provided that salary structure of R.R.B. employees would be determined by the Government of India having due regard to the salary structure of the employees of the State Government in com parable position. The Govt. of India determined salary structure of R.R.B. employees under section 17 of R.R.B. Act. The employees Association of Regional Rural Bank filed two writ petitions in Supreme Court, challenging the salary structure of R.R.B. on the ground of discrimination. On 1.9.87, the Supreme Court directed Govt. of India to constitute a National Industrial Tribunal for short N.I.T. for resolving the dispute, Consequently on 26.11. 17, the Govt. of India appointed N.I.T. under the chairmanship of Justice S. Abdul Reddy, a retired Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and referred the dispute to it. On 30.4.90, N.I.T. gave Its award to the effect that the Officers and other employees of R.R.B. would be entitled to pay scale, allowances and other benefits on par with the officers and other employees of comparable level in corresponding posts in sponsor banks with effect from 1.9.87 and that equation of posts and consequent fixation of pay, allowances' and other benefits would be decided by the Govt. of India in consultation with such authority as it may consider necessary. On 5.10.90 Govt. of India appointed the Equation Committee under the chairmanship of Sri P. Kotaih, Managing Director, National Association of Banks for Agriculture and Rural Development (for short NABARD) for the purpose. The Equation Committee submitted its report on 16.1.91, which was accepted by Govt. of India. On 22.2.91, Govt. of India issued instructions for giving effect to the award of N.I.T. and the recommendation of the Equation Committee. Consequent to the implementation of N.I.T. award and the recommendations of Equation Committee, certain changes were to be brought about in R.R.B. service, regulations, recruitment/ promotion policy etc. and, therefore, it was decided that a Working Group may be constituted to consider this aspect of the matter. Consequent to the implementation of N.I.T. award and the recommendations of Equation Committee, certain changes were to be brought about in R.R.B. service, regulations, recruitment/ promotion policy etc. and, therefore, it was decided that a Working Group may be constituted to consider this aspect of the matter. The NABARD constituted a Working group on 22.8.91 under the chairmanship of its Chief General Manager, Sri R.C. Gupta. The Working Group submitted its report on 17.2.92 with the recommendation that as on 22.2.91 the Branch Managers/Officers should be ranked senior to the Field Super visors in the combined seniority list of the cadre of Officers Junior Management-I. The Government of India accepted the recommendation of the Working Group and directed NABARD to implement it. On 20.3.93, NABARD issued instructions for incorporating the recommendations of the Working Group in the combined seniority list of the cadre of Officers Junior Management-I. The seniority list of Officers Junior Management-I has been, accordingly, revised and all the Branch Managers/Officers appointed prior to 22.2.91 were placed above the field Supervisors. Peeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of abolition of the cadre of Sr. Clerk cum Cashier and Field Supervisors with effect from 1.9.87, the petitioners were entitled for seniority in the cadre of Officer Junior Management Scale-I, from that date and the Working Group erred in assigning them seniority with effect from 22.2.91. In order to appreciate this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, relevant portions of the N.I.T. Award and the Equation Committee Report arc quote4 below :- N.I.T. Award: E Having regard to the above, in order to eliminate the anomalies and bring about uniformity in the pay scales in all the RRBs at least to the extent of each State, I find that they will be entitled to all the allowances, benefits which the State Government Servants of comparable level and status are entitled to. They will, there fore, be only entitled to claim the difference in allowances and other benefits, so as to bring about uniformity with the State Government employees in all matters of pay scales, allowances, benefits etc. till 31st day of August 1987. They will, there fore, be only entitled to claim the difference in allowances and other benefits, so as to bring about uniformity with the State Government employees in all matters of pay scales, allowances, benefits etc. till 31st day of August 1987. So far as the equation of posts and the consequent fixation of the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits for Officers and other employees of the RRBs on par with the Officers and other employees of comparable level, in corresponding posts in sponsor banks and their fitment into the new scales of pay as are applicable to Officers of sponsor banks in corresponding posts of comparable level, it is a matter which has to be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary. This will also include the pay scales, benefits, other allowances and fitment of sub-stair of the RRBs with the sub• staff of sponsor banks. This Award is accordingly passed and it shall cover all the existing RRBs. The Award shall be giver effect to from 1st day of September 1987. Whether the Officers and other employees of the RRBs should be constituted as a separate service or whether they should be merged with the cadre of Officers and other employees in corresponding and comparable level of posts in sponsor banks is entirely a matter within the jurisdiction and competence of the Central Government and it is upto it to take such steps, including amendment of the Act, as it may deem necessary. These are questions, which are outside the realm of reference and, therefore, I am not called upon to make suggestions or recommendations." Equation Committee Report : "The Committee is not convinced about equating the Field Supervisor of RRBs with the Officers in Scale I of Sponsor Banks. But in vie N of the provisions contained RRB Staff Service Regulations and the observations of the Hon. Tribunal it is recommended that Field Supervisors in RRBs be equated with Officers J.M. Scale I in Sponsor Banks." 4, From the above, it is clear that neither N.I.T. nor the Equation Committee actually abolished the cadre of Sr.- Clerk-cum-Cashier and Field Supervisor. This cadre was abolished by the Government of India vide its Circular no. 11-3-90 RRB (1) dated 22.2.91 relevant portions of which runs as under: "The Separate cadre of Sr. This cadre was abolished by the Government of India vide its Circular no. 11-3-90 RRB (1) dated 22.2.91 relevant portions of which runs as under: "The Separate cadre of Sr. Clerk-cum-Cashier and Field Supervisors existing in RRBs on the appointed date were abolished from that date. If Junior Clerk-cum-Cashiers were promoted as Sr. Clerk-cum-Cashiers and Field Supervisors as Officers/Branch Managers after the appointed date (1.9.1987) then the Pay + DA in the promoted post is protected by grant of personal allowance. Personal Allowance so granted should be adjusted in the manner indicated in paragraph 4 (v) above.” 5. Consequent upon the implement at ion of the N.I.T. Award and Equation Committee Report, certain changes were to, be brought about in the Service, Regulation, Recruitment/ Promotion Policy of the RRB staffs and, therefore, NABARD constituted a Working Group to consider this aspect of the matter. The Working Group submitted its report on 17.2.92. The relevant portions of the report is quoted below : "Seniority of Field Supervisors and Branch Managers JCCs and SCCs after 1 Sept. 1987. Consequent to the implementation of NIT Award read with the Equation Committee Report, wherein the posts of both FS and officers of RRBS were equated with OJM Scale I of sponsor banks, the GOI vide its orders dated 22 February 1991 have abolished the posts of FSS retrospectively from 1 September 1987 Daring the interim period, i.e. from 1 September 1987 the date of abolition of posts and 22 February 1991 the date of order of the Govt., abolishing the same, the RRBS had recruited/promoted Field Supervisors and officers. The issue, therefore, was what would be seniority of officers and Field Supervisors after 1 Sept. 1987. The Employees, Associations pleaded that till the Order of GOI dated 22 February 1991, the FSS were juniors in rank to the officers. It is also a fact that the Field Supervisors were working under the control of the officers/Branch Managers till that date. Hence, it would be appropriate to maintain the inter se seniority of the officers and FSS before 22 February 1991 in the same order. In other words, as on 22 February 1991 all the officers should rank above the Field Supervisors in the combined seniority list. Hence, it would be appropriate to maintain the inter se seniority of the officers and FSS before 22 February 1991 in the same order. In other words, as on 22 February 1991 all the officers should rank above the Field Supervisors in the combined seniority list. The Working Group considered the matter both in the light of representations of the Associations as also on the point of principles and recommends that as on 22 February 1991, the Branch Managers/officers should be ranked senior to the Field Supervisors in the combined seniority list. The working Group further recommends that all subsequent appointees i.e. appointed on or after 22.2.91 should be ranked junior to both and their seniority may be reckoned as per the existing practice. On the same analogy, the combined seniority lists of SCCS and JCCS as on 22 Feb. 1991 may be prepared." The Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Working Group and directed that as on 22.2.91 Branch Managers/Officers should rank above the Field Supervisors in the combined seniority list. 6. In my opinion, the policy of the Government of India that as on 22.2.91 Branch Managers/Officers should rank above the Field Supervisors in the combined seniority list is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. As stated above, the cadre of Sr. Clerk-cum-Cashiers and Field Supervisors was abolished on 22.2.91 with effect from 1.9.87. A number of Branch Managers/Officers were appointed by RRBS during the period from 1.9.87 to 22.2.91 the Branch Managers/Officers appointed during this period were admittedly appointed in higher cadre and higher pay scale than the Field Supervisors, Not only the Field Supervisors were junior in rank to the Branch Managers/Officers but they also worked under them till 22.2.91 and, there• fore, it was quite reasonable to maintain their inter se seniority as on 22.2.91. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Kuldip Chand Vrs. Union of India and others, AIR. 1996 S.C. 706, in which the Supreme Court held as under :- "The question, therefore, for our consideration is who is the senior in the post of the clerk? Admittedly post of clerk is a feeder post for promotion as an accountant. It is not in dispute that the posts of octroi moharrar and the clerk were fused and redesignated as clerks. Admittedly post of clerk is a feeder post for promotion as an accountant. It is not in dispute that the posts of octroi moharrar and the clerk were fused and redesignated as clerks. In the view, it must be deemed that Ashok Kumar has been working as a clerk since inception, viz. November 29, 1976. The appellant admittedly was appointed as a clerk on 5.2.1979 post of storekeeper though was a specialised post, the appellant had not been promoted to that post in his own right when that post was vacant the appellant came to be posted by way of fortuitous circumstances end continued to work in that post, which was otherwise than in his own right. It would not be & ground to claim seniority over Ashok Kumar, who admittedly was a clerk from 29.11.1976. The High Court, therefore, was right in its conclusion that the fortuitous circumstance of the appellant working as a storekeeper in the pay scale of Rs.510-800 cannot permit the appellant to have a march over the fourth respondent." In my opinion, this decision is of no help to the petitioner. In this case, the Supreme Court was considering the claim of a employee for seniority, who was posted on a vacant post by way of fortuitous circumstance having no right to hold the post. The Supreme Court held that the fortuitous circumstance of that appellant working in the higher pay scale cannot permit him to have a march over an employee who was otherwise senior to him. On the other hand, it is now well settled that a policy cannot be interfered with by law courts unless it is arbitrary or unreasonable. 8. In Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi Versus Union of India. AIR, 1962 SC-1139 the Supreme Court held as under :- “........There is no denial here of equality of opportunity as among citizens holding posts of the same grade. AS between citizens holding posts in different grades in government service there can be no question of equality of opportunity. It is fantastic to suppose that Art. 16 of the Constitution forbids the creation of different grades in the government service; that is what the petitioner's argument amounts to. The contention that Art, 16 has been violated because Class II Income-tax Officers are not eligible for promotion to higher posts, like the posts of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners directly is, therefore wholly unsound. The contention that Art, 16 has been violated because Class II Income-tax Officers are not eligible for promotion to higher posts, like the posts of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners directly is, therefore wholly unsound. The only other contention raised is that there is discrimination between Class I and Class II Officers inasmuch as though they do the same kind of work their pay scales are different. This it is said violates Art, 14 of the Constitution. If this contention had any validity there could be no incremental scales of pay fixed dependent on the duration of an officer's service. The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Art. 14. The contention that Art. 14 of the Constitution has been violated therefore also fails." 9. In Reserve Bank of India Vrs. N.C. Paliwal & ors. AIR, 1976 SC-2345, the Supreme Court held :- ".........Now under the Combined Seniority Scheme, the integration could only be on grade to 8radc basis and, therefore, if. by the time the Combined Seniority Scheme come into force, Grade II Clerks, junior to the petitioners, had become Grade I Clerks in the General Departments, they could be equated with only Grade I Clerks in the Specialised Departments and to this equation, no valid objection could be taken on behalf of the petitioners, Undoubtedly, it would cause heart-burning amongst the petitioners to find that Grade II Clerks, junior to them in the General Departments, have become Grade I clerks in the integrated service, while they still continue to be Grade II Clerks, but that is a necessary consequence of integration. Whenever services are integrated, some hardship is bound to result. Reasonable anticipations may be belied." xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx "Now, the first question which arises for consideration is whether the Reserve Bank violated the constitutional principle of equality in brining about integration of non-clerical with clerical services. We fail to see how integration of different cadres into one cadre can be said to involve any violation of the equality clause. It is now well settled, as a result of the decision of this Court, in Kisori Mohanlal Bakshi V. Union of India, ( AIR 1962 SC 1139 ) that Article 16 and a fortiori also Article 14 do not forbid the creation of different cadres for government service. It is now well settled, as a result of the decision of this Court, in Kisori Mohanlal Bakshi V. Union of India, ( AIR 1962 SC 1139 ) that Article 16 and a fortiori also Article 14 do not forbid the creation of different cadres for government service. And if that be so, equally these two articles cannot stand in the way of the State integrating different cadres into one cadre. It is entirely a mater for the State to decide whether to have several different cadres or one integrated cadre in its services. That is a matter of policy which does not attract the applicability of the equality clause. The integration of non-clerical with clerical services sought to be effectuated by the Combined Seniority Scheme cannot in the circumstances be assailed as violative of the constitutional principle of equality." 10. In Kamal Kanti Dutta and others Vrs. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1980, SC 2056, the Supreme Court observed :- "In regard to the individual instances cited before us as exemplifying the injustice caused to the promotes, it is not safe to test the constitutionality of a service rule on the touchstone of fortunes of individuals. No matter with what care, objectivity and foresight a rule is framed, some hardship, inconvenience or injustice is bound to result to some members of the service. The paramount consideration is the reconciliation of conflicting claims of two important constituents of Service, one of which brings fresh blood and the other mature experience." 11. In K.S. Vora and others Vrs. State -of Gujarat and others, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2343 the Supreme Court held: “..... The second aspect to be borne in mind is that Rules of seniority are a matter for the employer to frame and even though prospects of promotion in future were likely to be prejudiced by introduction of a new set of rules to regulate seniority, if the rules were made bonafide and to meet exigencies of the service, no entertainable grievance could be made." 12. In Delhi Science Forum & others Versus Union of India and another, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 405 , the Supreme Court observed – "In Morey v. Doud, Frankfurter, J. said: In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self restrain if not judicial deference to legislative judgments The legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. In Delhi Science Forum & others Versus Union of India and another, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 405 , the Supreme Court observed – "In Morey v. Doud, Frankfurter, J. said: In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self restrain if not judicial deference to legislative judgments The legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. The courts have only the power to destroy, not to reconstruct. When these are added to the complexity of economic regulation the uncertainty the liability to error, the beweldering confict of the experts, and the number of times the judges have been overruled by events-self-limitation can be seen to be the path to judicial wisdom and institutional prestige and stability. What has been said in respect of legislation is applicable even in respect of policies which have been adopted by parliament. They cannot be tested in court of law. The Courts cannot express their opinion as to whether at a particular Juncture or under a particular situation prevailing in the country any such national policy should have been adopted or not. There may be views and views, opinions which may be shared and believer by citizens of the country including the representatives of the people in Parliament. But that has to be sorted out in Parliament which has to approve such policies. Privatisation is a fundamental concept under lying the questions about the power to make economic decisions. What should be the role of the State in the economic development of the nation? How the resources of the country shall be used? How the goals fixed shall be attained? What are to be the safeguards to prevent the abuse of the economic power ? What is the mechanism of accountability to ensure that the decision regarding privatisation is in public interest? All these questions have to be answered by vigilant parliament. Courts have their limitations-because these issues rest with the policy makers for the Nation. No direction can be given or is expected from the Courts unless while implementing such policies, there is violation or infringement of any of the constitutional or statutory provision. The Tel-com policy was placed before the Parliament and it shall be deemed that the Parliament has approved the same. This Court cannot review and examine as to whether the said policy should have been adopted. The Tel-com policy was placed before the Parliament and it shall be deemed that the Parliament has approved the same. This Court cannot review and examine as to whether the said policy should have been adopted. Of course, whether there is any legal or constitutional bar in adopting such policy can certainly be examined by the Court. 13. Similarly in State of U.P. & others VS. Dr. R.K. Tandon and others (1996) 10 S.C.C. 247 , the Supreme Court observed :- "Then comes the case of the candidates of third list dated 10.5.1979 Mr. Madhva Reddy has rightly contended that the date of recommendation is not conclusive. Normally, the settled law is that the seniority would be counted from the date on which the candidate actually stated discharging the duties of the posts and in the case of direct recruitment the date of appointment in the order of merit prepared by the P.S.C. But in view of the loggerheads between the recruits and the adhoc doctors, it would be obvious that the adhoc non-selectees should be regularised as per the procedure prescribed in the Adhoc Rules. As seen, the third list was sent by the PSC on 10.5.1979, while the Adhoc Rules came to be made on 14.5.1979. It is seen that a committee was required to be constituted under Rule 4 to go into the relative merits of the non-selectees and those who fulfil the qualifications prescribed in Rule 3 (iii) are found to be eligible and fit to be appointed. A list was required to be drawn on the basis thereof and appointments made accordingly. All this exercise obviously would take considerable time. Therefore the non-selectees cannot claim any seniority over the candidates already recommended by the PSC in the third list dated 10.5.1979." 14. Same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sethi and another Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and others, AIR 1997 SC 899 , in the following words :-. "On behalf of the Commission, Shri Ashwini Kumar has urged that as a result of fitment under paragraph 5 (iii) of the Executive Instructions the cadre of Telex-Operators was merged in the existing cadre of AG-II and the seniority of Telex-Operators bad to be fixed in accordance with paragraph 1 (viii) of the Executive Instructions read with Clause H (iii) of the Principles of Seniority. We find considerable force in this contention. We find considerable force in this contention. As a result of the fitment policy contained in paragraph 5 (iii) of the Executive Instructions the cadre of Telex Operators had been merged in the cadre of AG-II. The word "redesignated" in paragraph 5 (iii) has to be read with the words "two or more categories have been merged" contained in paragraph 1 (viii) and it can only be construed to mean that as a result of redesignation there was merger of the cadre of Telex Operators into the cadre of AG-II. The statement in paragraph 5 (iii) that the total service rendered by the employees in the pay scale of Rs.360-640/- and Rs.370-700 (Rs.430 880) will be counted for the purpose of promoti0n to the pay scale of Rs.470-880 (Rs.530 1010) only enables the Telex Operators who have been merged in the cadre of AG-II to avail the period of service rendered by the them as Telex Operators for the purpose of promotion. But the seniority in the cadre of AG-II will be governed by the provisions contained in paragraph 1 (viii) which lays down the principles of fixation of inter se seniority consequent upon merger of two categories. In paragraph 1 (viii) it is specified that for the purposes of promotion to the next higher scale, inter se seniority of the employees considered for promotion will be fixed on the basis of length of service put in by the individual in the respective pay scale with those in higher erstwhile scale, being treated as senior to those in the lower erstwhile scale inbloc. This principles is in consonance with the Principle laid down in Clause H (iii) of the Principles of Seniority Prescribed under Regulation 19 of the 1975 Regulations. The said provisions deals with the absorption or the employees in the cadre, to which they are temporarily transferred and jays down that their seniority will be counted only from the date of their transfer to the cadre. The merger of the cadre of the Telex operator had been brought by transfer of the Telex-Operator to the cadre of AG-II and their 'absorption in the said cadre. Their seniority will therefore have to be determined in accordance with clause H (iii). We are unable to appreciate hew Clause B (iii) (b) can be made applicable. The merger of the cadre of the Telex operator had been brought by transfer of the Telex-Operator to the cadre of AG-II and their 'absorption in the said cadre. Their seniority will therefore have to be determined in accordance with clause H (iii). We are unable to appreciate hew Clause B (iii) (b) can be made applicable. The said Clause relates to fixation of seniority in the matter of departmental promotes where promotions to a grade are made either from more than one grade or from the same grade divided into different cadres on regional project or directorate basis. The induction of Telex Operators into the existing cadre of AG-II giving the same reason did not involve any promotion from mere than one grade or from the same grade divided into di1ferent cadres on regional, project or directorate basis. The said provisions would have application in the matter of promotion of AG-I from a regional cadre of the post of superintendent in a centralised cadre. In this context, it may also be mention that till April 1, 1979 the pay scale of Telex Operators were lower than those of AG-II and it was only with effect from April 1, 1979 that both are placed on the same scale. The earlier service of the telex-Operator in a lower pay scale could not be equated with the service of regular employee in AG-I cadre in a higher pay scale. The Telex Operators were therefore, rightly placed below the regular employees in AG-II cadre at the time of merger of the cadre of Tele -Operator in the cadre of AG-II. The High Court in our opinion was not right in holding that the Commission had committed an error in placing the Telex-Operators enbloc below regular employee in AG-II cadre when Telex-Operators were brought in the cadre of AG-II." 15. In the result both the writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed