A. K. Sikri, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS joined Short Service Commission in the Indian Army on 24th April, 1966 after getting pre-commission training from 25th June, 1965 to 23rd April, 1966. An advertisement appeared in the newspaper Indian Express on 6th January, 1975 released by Syndicate Bank/respondent No. 2 inviting applications for the posts of Junior Officer. In the said advertisement it was inter alia stipulated that 25% of the vacancies were reserved for Emergency/short Service Commissioned Officers (hereinafter referred to as emergency/ssc Officers , for short) released from the Detence Services. A Circular to file:///c:\documents and Settings\administrator\desktop\new Folder (2)\junkcharacter. errthis effect was also issued by the Syndicate Bank on 10th January, 1975. ( 2 ) THE relevant portion of the said Circular is reproduced below: "age: The candidates should not be above 25 years or below 20 years as on 1. 4. 1975. The upper age limit in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedulted Tribes is however 30 years. In repect of released Emergency /short Service Commissioned Officers the upper age limit will be relaxed to the extent of their period of service in the Defence Services subject to an age limit of 35 years. In special circumstances, age is relaxable in respect of any of the candidates at the direction of the Bank. Reservation: 15% of the vacancies are reserved for Scheduled Castes, 75% for Scheduled Tribes and 25% for Emergency/short Service Commissioned Officers released from Defence Service. " ( 3 ) PETITIONERS applied against 25% posts reserved for ex Emefgency/scc Officers for the posts of Junior Officers pursuant to aforesaid advertisement and appeared in the written test which was conducted on 23rd February, 1975 and qualified the same. Subsequently, they appeared for vista-vis test held in July and October, 1975 and were declared selected. Petitioner No. 1 joined the services of respondent Bank on 8th June, 1976 and petitioner No. 2 joined the services on 29th March, 1976 after they got themselves released from the Army on the expiry of their service commission terms. Subsequently, they appeared for vista-vis test held in July and October, 1975 and were declared selected. Petitioner No. 1 joined the services of respondent Bank on 8th June, 1976 and petitioner No. 2 joined the services on 29th March, 1976 after they got themselves released from the Army on the expiry of their service commission terms. ( 4 ) IT may be stated at this stage that the President of India in exercise of his powers conferred by Proviso to Article 309 and Clause 5 of Article 148 of the Constitution of India made the rules regulating the reservation of vacancies in the Central Civil Services and Post Class I and Class H for the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union and these rules are called "released Emergency Commissioned Officers and their Services Commissioned Officer (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1971" (hereinafter called as Rule, for short ). The relevant provisions of these rules are reporduced below: Rule 2: "application: These rules shall apply to all the Central Civil Services and posts. Class I and Class H, but shall not apply to: (a) Engineering and Medical Services and posts; and (b) Posts the duties of which involve conducting research or organising, guiding and directing research. Rule3: (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) The expression "release" (with its grammatical variations) means release as per the Scheduled year of release, after a spell of service, from the Armed Forces of the Union and does not mean release during or at the end of training or during or at the end of Short Service Commission granted to cover periods of such training prior to being taken in actual service, nor does it cover cases of Officers released on account of misconduct or inefficiency or at their own request. Rule4: (1) Twenty per cent of the vacancies in the Indian Foreign Service, and 25 per cent of the vacancies in all the other Central Civil Services and posts Class 1 to which these rules apply and which are to be filled by direct recruitment, and 27 per cent of the vacancies which are to be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of open competition, and 25 per cent of the vacancies which are to be filled by direct recruitment otherwise than through open competition in all the Central Civil Services and posts, class in any year, shall be reserved for being filled by the Emergency Commissioned Officers and the "short Service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union who were commissioned after the 1st November, 1962 but before the 10th January, 1968, and who - (i) in the case of Emergency Commissioned Officers are released according to a phased programme; or (ii) in the case of Short Service Commissioned Officers are released on the expiry of the tenure of their service; (iii) are invalided owing to a disability attributing to or aggravated by military service. " Rule6: Seniority and Pay: (1) Seniority and pay of these candidates who are appointed against the vacancies reserved under Sub-rule (i) of Rule 4 shall be determined on the assumption that they entered the Service or the Post, as the case maybe, at the first opportunity they had after joining the training prior to their Commission or the date of their Commission where there was only post-Commission training, that at- (a) in the case of Services or posts - Recruitment - to which is made on the results of - competitive examination conducted by the Commission, the released Emergency Commissioned Officer or Short Service Commissioned Officer who competes successfully at the first or second available opportunity would be deemed to have passed the examination at the first or second occasion he could have appeared at the relevant examination, had he not joined military service and shall be assigned the year of allotment correspondingly; and (b) in the case of Servicess or posts requirement to which is made other wise then through a competitive examination conducted by the commission, seniority shall be fixed on the assumption, that the Emergency Commissioned Officers and the Short Service Commissioned Officers would have been appointed on the date arrived at after giving credit for the approved military service as Emergency Commissioned Officers or Short Services Commissioned Officers as the case may be including the period of training, if any, and shall be deemed to have been allotted, the corresponding year for the purpose of fixation of seniority. " ( 5 ) THE perusal of the aforesaid rules would show that in terms of these rules 25% of the vacancies in all Central Civil Services Post Class I which are to be filled by direct recruitment, were to be reserved for being filled by Emergency/ssc Officers. These, rules further stipulate that on appointment of such officers to Class I post thier seniority and pay and the services rendered by them as Emergency/ssc Officers were to be taken into consideration. The public sector Bank like the respondent Bank who had employed these ex Emergency/ssc Officers had not given benefit of counting of their services and pay fixation while employing such Officers including the petitioners themselves. Pay was fixed at the starting point of the pay scale on joining the services as Junior Officers. The public sector Bank like the respondent Bank who had employed these ex Emergency/ssc Officers had not given benefit of counting of their services and pay fixation while employing such Officers including the petitioners themselves. Pay was fixed at the starting point of the pay scale on joining the services as Junior Officers. Many representations were made and the matter was considered by the department of Economic Affairs, Bank Division in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and circular letter dated 19th October, 1977 was issued by the aforesaid department to all Banks directing them to count the services rendered as ex Emergency/ssc Officers and refixed the pay of such Officers. ( 6 ) THE respondent Bank also issued Circular No. 211/81/bc/pd/75 dated 28th August, 1981 mentioning the decision of the Government of India to the effect that counting of Defence Service of these ex Emergency/ssc Officers for the purpose of fixation of their pay scale on re-employment with the Bank was to be taken into consideration. It is mentioned that some officers belonging to ex Emergency/ssc Officers who were recruited as Junior Officers (Now as IMGS-I) their pay was fixed at the starting point in the pay scale relating to the erstwhile grade and in view of the aforesaid decision regarding counting of their defence service their pay was required to be refixed. It was further stated that for this purpose the basic pay of these officers fixed at the time of their joining the Bank service would be notionally refixed by giving one increment in the erstwhile grade of the services in the defence service. The relevant portion of this circular is reproduced below: "the Government of India has now taken a decision as regards the counting of Defence Service of these Ex-ECOs and SSCOs for the purpose of fixation of their pay scales on re-employment in the Bank. The Banking Division, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi has advised us to consider the period of service put in by these officers in the Defence Service for the purpose of fixation of their initial pay scale on re-employment in the public sector Banks. We have been advised to refix their basic pay in the scale relating to Junior Management Grade Scale I viz. Rs. 700. 00 to Rs. 1,500. 00 with affect from 1. 4. 1980. We have been advised to refix their basic pay in the scale relating to Junior Management Grade Scale I viz. Rs. 700. 00 to Rs. 1,500. 00 with affect from 1. 4. 1980. Arrears due if any, on refixation will be paid from 1. 4. 1980. As per the advice of the Government of India, the benefit of reckoning the Defence Service is restricted to the officers who joined pre-commissioned training or were commissioned in the armed forces between 1. 11. 1962 to 10. 1. 1968. In terms of the above instructions of the Government of India, the basic pay of the officers who are covered under the Government defence will be suitably refixed. For this purpose, the basic pay of these officers fixed at the timeof their joining Bank s service will be notionally refixed by giving one increment in the erstwhile Junior Officer s grade for each completed year of service in the Defence services. Fitment in the new scales of pay in terms of Syndicate Bank (Officers) Service Regulation,1979 will be made based on there visedbasicpay in the erstwhile Junior Officer s grade as on 30. 6. 1979. This notional fitment in the new scales will be with effect from 1. 7. 1979 and will be only for revising the fitment as per the Government of India advice. Salary and other allowances on refixation will be allowed only from 1. 4. 1980 in terms of the advice of the Government of India. This means that the officers on refixation will become entitled to arreare only from 1. 4. 1980. " ( 7 ) THE department of Economic Affairs (Bank Division) issued another circular letter to the public sector Banks and other financial institutions on 10th November, 1986 refering to its earlier letter dated 19th October, 1987 stating that seniority to these officers is also to be given in addition to pay fixation. After receiving this letter dated 10th November, 1986 respondent Bank issued Circular No. 416/86/bc/mrdo-34/mprd, dated 12th December, 1986 stating as under: Government of India have advised us to take into account the service rendered by Ex-ECOs/sscos in armed forces and determine the seniority provided: 1. Ex-ECOs/ex-SSCOs were commissioned between 1. 11. 1962 and 1. 1. 1986. 2. Ex-ECOs/ex-SSCOs were recruited against vacandes reserved for this category. Ex-ECOs/ex-SSCOs were commissioned between 1. 11. 1962 and 1. 1. 1986. 2. Ex-ECOs/ex-SSCOs were recruited against vacandes reserved for this category. " The same may be read as under: "the Government of India have advised us to take into account the service rendered by Ex-ECOs/ex-SSCOs in armed forces and determine the seniority provided. (i) Ex-ECOs/ex-SSCOs were commissioned in armed forces between 1. 11. 1962 to 10. 1. 1968. and (ii) Ex-ECOs/ex-SSCOs were recruited against vacandes reserved for this category. " ( 2 ) THIS was followed by another Circular No. 3/87/bc/mrpd/1/mprd dated 6th January, 1987 refering to the aforesaid circular dated 12th December, 1986 and clarifying that if any Ex-ECOs/ex-SSCOs were commissioned in the armed forces after 10th January, 1968 they would not be granted the benefit of seniority. ( 9 ) ON the basis of aforesaid Government instructions and Bank s own circular the petitioners received individual letters both dated February 12,1987 in which it was mentioned that the petitioners were eligible for grant of seniority and they would hear from the Bank in this respect in due course. Thereafter the matter was put to the Board of Directors to give them the seniority. The Board note dated 28th January, 1983 was prepared for this purpose stated that both the petitioners satisfied the eligibility criteria for giving them benefit of seniority taking into account the actual military service rendered as Ex-ECOs/ex-SSCOs. It was also mentioned that while giving them the benefit of seniority they were entitled to the grant of antedated promotion also as per the advice of the Government of India. Since this aspect has bearing on the present case, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the Board note dated 28th January, 1988 on this aspect. "there were representations from Sri B. L. Arora that he shall be granted antedated promotions also. Government of India vide their letter No. 202/9/1 /86- SCT (B), dated 8. 7. 1987 had advised the Bank that ante-date promotions shall be given to Sri B. L. Arora. A copy of the Government letter is enclosed as Annexure V. The Bank had informed Government of India that promotions are based on selection method and, therefore, ante-dated promotion would not be granted taking into account service only vide our letter No. MRDO: MPRDS:606:3062 dated 10. 8. A copy of the Government letter is enclosed as Annexure V. The Bank had informed Government of India that promotions are based on selection method and, therefore, ante-dated promotion would not be granted taking into account service only vide our letter No. MRDO: MPRDS:606:3062 dated 10. 8. 1987 enclosed as Annexure VI, Government of India had advised the Bank vide the letter No. 202/9/l/06-SCR (B)dated5. 10. 1987 that they shall be granting antedated promotions also. A copy of the Government letter is enclosed as Annexure VII. The gist of the Government letter is that the grant of ante-dated seniority will be necessarily entail grant of promotions to higher posts based upon such seniority subject to the condition that their service period reckoned from the deemed date of joining is not less than the minimum period of service required under the rules for promotion to such posts. Therefore according to Government guidelines the Bank has to make the following promotions. S. P. Bhargava 8. 6. 1977 Name B. L. Arora Actual date of joining the Bank 29. 3. 1977 II yrs. 25 days. Actual military service. 10 yrs. 362 days 4. 5. 1966. 1. 4. 1972. 1. 1. 1978 1. 7. 1983 National date of joining the Bank injmgs-I. 1. 4. 1966 National date of promotion to MMGS-H 1. 4. 1972 National date of promotion to MMGS-HI 1. 1. 1978 National date of promotion to SMGS-IV______1. 7. 1983 ( 10 ) THE matter was considered by the Board of Directors in their meeting held on 22nd March, 1998 and the Board resolved that "the antedated promotion to Shri B. L. Arora and S. P. Bhargava be granted as per Government guidelines". After the aforesaid Board resolution both the petitioners were given notional promotions to Higher grades as mentioned above including promotion to the posts of Senior Management Grade Scale IV with effect from 1st July, 1983. Specific letters were issued to both the petitioners in this respect which are dated 28th March, 1998 and 26th March, 1998 respectively. ( 11 ) ONE Shri V. Sudeer who was working as Sub Manager of the respondent Bank challenged the aforesaid decision of the respondent Bank giving aforesaid pay fixation and promotion to the petitioners herein by filing Writ Petition No. 611/89 in this Court. The respondent Bank contested the aforeaid writ petition by filing counter affidavit. ( 11 ) ONE Shri V. Sudeer who was working as Sub Manager of the respondent Bank challenged the aforesaid decision of the respondent Bank giving aforesaid pay fixation and promotion to the petitioners herein by filing Writ Petition No. 611/89 in this Court. The respondent Bank contested the aforeaid writ petition by filing counter affidavit. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of the affidavit which demonstrates the stand taken by the respondent Bank in the said petition. " (A ). . . The respondents No. 4 and 5 are Ex-ECOs/sscos which constitute a valid category of classification created by the Government in public interest for the purpose of providing re-employment to such ex-Commissioned Officers in Public Sector Banks by issue of guidelines made applicable through statutory Regulations, entitled "syndicate Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979. . . . " (b ). . . The Regulations 17 (1) of the said Service Regulations reads as under: "promotions to all grades of Officers in the Bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from time-to-time having regard to the guidelines of the Government if any. . . . " (c ). . . In pursuance of the Government s guidelines the Board of Directors of the Bank had passed the following Resolution on 22. 3. 1988: "resolved that the ante-dated promotions to Shri B. L. Arora and Shri S. P. Bhargava be granted as per Government guidelines. . . . " (d ). . . Accordingly, the order dated 26. 3. 1988 promoting Major S. L. Arora, SMGS-IV was issued wherein it was specifically stated that the Board of Directors had after careful consideration of all aspects of the case decided to grant ante-dated promotion to Major Arora as per Government guidelines. . . " (e ). . . In fact, the respondent No. 4 (Major Arora) had specifically represented to the respondent Bank on 12. 12. 1986 and to Union of India on 30. 6. 1987 complaining that, his Army colleagues having the similar length of service who joined the State Bank of India were already holding the posts equivalent to SMGS-IV in accordance with the Government instructions. He agitated against the discriminatory treatment that was being meted out. Consequently, the Government and the Bank had to give them the same treatment to which they were Vol. He agitated against the discriminatory treatment that was being meted out. Consequently, the Government and the Bank had to give them the same treatment to which they were Vol. LXXXIII S. P. BHARGAVA (CAPT.) v. UNION OF INDIA and ORS. 553 entitled like other officers belonging to the category of Ex. ECOs/ S8cos. . . . " Writ Petition No. 611/89 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24th July, 1989 which reads as under: "mr. Sethhasploducedacopyofthebear snoteno. 5/hrdd-3/ps-88dated 28th January, 1988. Let the same be taken on record. Regulation 17 (1) of the Officer s Service Regulations provides that "promo- tion to all grades of officers in the Banks shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from time-to-time having regard to the guidelines of the Government, if any. Theboard snoteno. 5/hrdd-3/ps^8dated28thjanuary,1988referstothe Government guidelines regarding giving benefit of Seniority (and conse- quential promotion) taking into account the actual Military Service to Ex. ECO/ex-SSCO provided they were commissioned in the armed force during the period 1st November, 1962 to 10th January, 1968 and have been recruited against vacancies reserved for Ex. ECOs/ex-SSCOs. Respondents 4 and 5 were given seniority as they satisfied the above eligibility criteria. We find no reason to interfere. Dismissed. ( 12 ) SPECIAL Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13010/89 filed by V. Sudeer against the aforesaid order dated 24th July, 1989 wais also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20th December, 1989. ( 13 ) AFTER the litigations initiated by Shri V. Sudeer challenging the pay fixation and promotions granted to the petitioners was given judicial burial. The petitioners had sigh of relief and hoped that their anxious moments were over. But it was not to be so. Soon they were slapped with impugned show cause notice dated 17th January, 1990proposingtorestorestohsq mofltlte. Thiswasissuedwithinonemonth of dismissal of Special Leave Petition of Shri V. Sudeer, by none else but the respondent Bank itself, whichgranted the petitioners pay fixation and promotion based on Government decisions and their own circulars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thiswasissuedwithinonemonth of dismissal of Special Leave Petition of Shri V. Sudeer, by none else but the respondent Bank itself, whichgranted the petitioners pay fixation and promotion based on Government decisions and their own circulars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 14 ) THIS assault is taken by respondent Bank issuing show cause notice dated 17th January, 1990 to both the petitioners in which it was stated that Bank was proposing to restore the statustpw antebut treated their promotions null and void, and to treat them as if they had continued in the scale of MMG Class-H throughout and the petitioners were asked to submit their replies to the proposed action. Petitioners submitted their representations dated 8th February, 1990 and 5th February, 1990 respectively refuting the allegations made in the show cause notice and stating that the promotions which were rightly given should not be treated as null and void. However, without waiting further and leaving the matter at the hands of respondent Bank, and apprehending that the respondent Bank would go aheadwiththeactionasproposedintheshowcausenoticedatedl7thjanuary,1990, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition in this Court challenging quashing of show cause. notice dated 17th January, 1990 and seeking directions against the Bank not to proceed further in the matter in violation of law. Alongwith this writ petition CM No. 1106/90 was also filed seeking stay of their reversions. Interim stay was granted against the petitioners reversion. Thereafter on 16th October, 1990 rule was issued in the writ petition and stay order was confirmed. In view of the said order petitioners are still working in MMGS Grade-IV. However although their status as on the date of filing is protected, they have not been considered for further promotion by the respondent Bank, during this period. ( 15 ) MR. V. K. Shali Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the Bank letter/show cause notice dated 17th January, 1990 by making the following submissions: 1. The impugned show cause notice/letter dated 17th January, 1990 was barred by principles of res judicata. Elaborating on this aspect, it was submitted that the grant of benefit of seniority on antedated promotion was challenged by Shri V. Sudeer in a Writ Petition No. 611 of 1989 and this Court while adjudicating on this aspect has already decided that the petitioners were rightly given the seniority and antedated promotion. Elaborating on this aspect, it was submitted that the grant of benefit of seniority on antedated promotion was challenged by Shri V. Sudeer in a Writ Petition No. 611 of 1989 and this Court while adjudicating on this aspect has already decided that the petitioners were rightly given the seniority and antedated promotion. In the said petition, the respondent Bank were respondents 2 and 3 and petitioners were respondents 4 and 5. The point in issue both cases is the same between the same parties who were also parties in the said petition. It is submitted that res judicata applies even between co-defendants/co-respondents and, therefore, respondent Bank is precluded from issuing letter/show cause notice dated 17th January, 1990. 2. The respondent Bank was barred from issuing such notice dated 17th January, 1990 on the principles of estoppel/promissory estoppel as well. The respondent Bank had taken a particular stand in the aforesaid writ petition filed by Shri V. Sudeer and they could not take contrary stand in the notice dated 17th January, 1990. 3. Even if it is presumed that the stand taken by the respondent Bank in the Civil Writ No. 611/89 was wrong or erroneous, appropriate remedy for the respondent Bank was to seek review of the judgment/ order dated 24th July, 1989 and without getting the said order reviewed the Bank could not issue such notice dated 17th January, 1990. 4. It was lastly contended that even in equity the stand of the respondent Bank in its notice dated 17th January, 1990 was not proper. The respondent Bank wanted to revert the petitioners and put them back in the position of MMGS Grade-II, whereas the counterparts of the petitioners who were given further promotions were today working in Grade VII or Grade VIII, and, therefore, if the respondent Bank succeeds in its motive the petitioners would suffer irreparably. ( 16 ) AS against the aforesaid contention of the petitioners, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank, Mr. Jagat Arora argued that the benefit given to the petitioners was given on the misinterpretation of Government instructions. ( 16 ) AS against the aforesaid contention of the petitioners, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank, Mr. Jagat Arora argued that the benefit given to the petitioners was given on the misinterpretation of Government instructions. It was contended that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefits in terms of Rules 1971 inasmuch as both the petitioners were not released at the time of their appointment However, the provisions of reservation as per Rule 1971 were available only till 29th January, 1974 as is clear from Rule 1 (3) and when the petitioners were appointed, these rules had ceased to operate and, therefore, these rules were not applicable in the case of the petitioners. It was further contended that it was only much later in 1989 that the Government of India informed the respondent Bank that Rules 1971 were available and applicable to Ex. ECOs/sscos only till 29th January, 1974 and not thereafter and, therefore, promotion given to the petitioners had been given on an erroneous understanding of the Notification. Counsel for the respondent Bank went to the extent in his arguing that since Rules 1971 had ceased to operate, the petitioner could not have been appointed even, in the Bank in the reserved quota. Still, according to him. Bank had taken lenient view by not cancelling the appointment but it was only proposing to withdraw the promotions. It was further submitted that when the counter affidavit was filed by the Bank in Writ Petition No. 611 of 1989 the aforesaid position was not in the knowledge of tine respondent Bank, and therefore, under the belief and short action to give these petitioners benefit of seniority and ante-dated promotion was correct, when the affidavit was filed in the said Writ Petition No. 611 of 1989 defending the action to grant the petitioners benefit of seniority and promotion. ( 17 ) AT the time of arguments although nobody appeared on behalf of the Union of India/respondent No. 1 a perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 shows that the stand taken in the said counter affidavit is the same as that of the respondent Bank. ( 17 ) AT the time of arguments although nobody appeared on behalf of the Union of India/respondent No. 1 a perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 shows that the stand taken in the said counter affidavit is the same as that of the respondent Bank. ( 18 ) BEFORE dealing with the respective submissions of the parties and deciding the controversy in issue, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the admitted facts in this case as foundation of the decision can be laid on these admitted facts and presuming that 1971 Rules were not applicable. The admitted position is as under: 1. Advertisement dated 6th January, 1975 was released by the respondent Bank inviting applications for the post of Junior Officers. In the said advertisement 25% of the vacancies were reserved for Emergency/ssc Officers released from the defence services. 2. Circular dated 10th January, 1975 was issued by the respondent Bank to the same effect which inter alia stipulated that 25% posts are reserved for Emergency/short Commissioned Officer Services released from defence services. 3. Petitioners had applied for the post pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement against 25% quota reserved for Emergency/ssc Officers and they were duly selected by the Bank against this quota. 4. On the selection of the petitioner in the Bank services they got themselves released from the army. 5. On the appointment of the petitioners in the respondent-Bank their pay was fixed at the starting point of the pay scale. Similarly appointments were made in various other Banks against quota to Ex-ECOs/ex- SSCOs. Many representations were made by such Officers for giving them the benefit of services rendered as ECOs/sscos for fixing their pay and seniority. 6. These representations were considered and circular letter dated 19th October, 1977 was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India extending the aforesaid benefit. Based on this decision respondent Bank also issued circular dated 28th August, 1981 stating that such Officers like the petitioners who were appointed as Junior Officer Grade were entitled to the benefit of pay fixation. Thereafter, Ministry of Finance issued another circular dated 10th November, 1986 giving the benefit of seniority also. Based on this, respondent-Bank issued circular dated 12th December, 1986 extending the same benefit to its own employee like the petitioners. 7. Thereafter, Ministry of Finance issued another circular dated 10th November, 1986 giving the benefit of seniority also. Based on this, respondent-Bank issued circular dated 12th December, 1986 extending the same benefit to its own employee like the petitioners. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision petitioners received specific individual letters mentioning that they were eligible for grant of. seniority and refixation of pay. Matter was thereafter considered by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank which took decision on 28th January, 1988, having regard to Government of India instructions and guidelines and resolved to extend the benefit of the promotion to the petitioners. It was in these circumstances, the petitioners were given notional promotion to MMGS-II, III and SMGS-IV from respective dates mentioned above. 8. Grant of these promotions were challenged by one Mr. V. Sudeer by filing a writ petition in this Court. The respondent-Bank defended the pay fixation and grant of promotions to the petitioners herein. Writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and Special Leave Petition against the judgment of this Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. ( 19 ) FROM the aforesaid admitted factual matrix, one can clearly conclude that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Junior Officers against the stipulated quota of 25% meant for Emergency/ssc Officers released from the defence services. It can also be concluded that specific decision was taken by the Government for refixing of the pay and give that seniority by counting their services rendered in Army. The respondent-Bank had taken its own conscious decision by issuing circulars to extend the aforesaid benefit to such officers in its own Bank. The cases of the petitioners were considered at the highest level i. e. Board of Directors. Not only this when the confirment of such benefit was challenged in this Court, the same was defended by the respondent-Bank and ultimately this Court held that confirment of such benefit to the petitioners was proper and valid. Once this position is accepted, the contemplated action of the respondent-Bank in its show cause notice dated 17th January, 1990 is dearly unfair and unreasonable at this distance of time. It cannot be said that benefit was conferred upon the petitioners on the mis-interpretation of Government instructions. Once this position is accepted, the contemplated action of the respondent-Bank in its show cause notice dated 17th January, 1990 is dearly unfair and unreasonable at this distance of time. It cannot be said that benefit was conferred upon the petitioners on the mis-interpretation of Government instructions. Even otherwise in support of this submission what is stated is that in terms of Rule 1971, petitioners were not entitled to the benefit because they were not released from Army at the time of their appointment and Rules of 1971 were available only till 29th January, 1974. This contention is even otherwise misconceived. Even if the position is examined de hors the Rules of 1971 what is to be seen is that respondent-Bank had issued the advertisement wherein 25% vacancies were reserved for Ex. ECOs/ex. SSCOs and petitioners were selected against that. At this stage when the petitioners were selected against that. At this stage when the petitioners were duly selected as Junior Officers against the advertisement issued in 1975, the stand of the respondent Bank that such reservation should not have been made is far fetched, it may be stated that de hors the Rules of 1971, the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Bank and, therefore, appointment of the petitioners is valid andcannot be faulted with at this stage, even if it is presumed that the respondent-Bank erroneously reserved the posts of Ex. ECOs/ex. SSCOs released from the army. Further as seen above, the Bank issued its own circular giving the benefit of seniority and pay fixation taking into consideration the services rendered by these petitioners. Therefore, these action cannot be reversed raising the bogey of mis-interpretation of the Government sinstructions. Not only this, one cannot loose sight of the fact that these benefits of seniority and pay fixation given to the petitioners has been the subject matter of challenge in judicial proceedings in this Court and this Court has held the grant of benefits of. pay fixation and promotion given to the petitioners and this judicial dicta has attained finality inasmuch as Special Leave Petition was also dismissed against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Bank cannot be permitted to reopen the issue which has been given judicial burial. Moreover, the stand of the respondent-Bank itself was that the benefit given to the petitioners was valid and proper. Bank cannot be permitted to reopen the issue which has been given judicial burial. Moreover, the stand of the respondent-Bank itself was that the benefit given to the petitioners was valid and proper. Therefore, the Bank is estopped from issuing any such notice dated 17th January, 1990. Even if it is presumed that the Bank had misinterpreted the Government instructions and cancelled to give the benefits to the petitioners (although I have concluded that it is not so), the appropriate remedy was to seek review of the judgment dated 24th July, 1989 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 611 of 1989. In fact the sequence of events shows unfairness and unreasonableness on the part of the respondent s own taking such action. As noticed above, after the dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 24th July, 1989 Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 20th December, 1989 within a month, instant show cause notice dated 17th January, 1990was issued. It is not understood as to what transpired during this period which prompted the respondent-Bank to issue show cause notice on the ground that the benefit was wrongly conferred upon the petitioner. ( 20 ) THUS from any angle, the matter is to be looked into, I am of the opinion that show cause notice dated 17thjanuary, 1990 issued by the respondent Bank is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioners were properly given the benefit of pay fixation as well as notional promotion. After giving such benefits to the petitioners there was no valid reason for the respondent-Bank to seek withdrawal of the same by issuing show cause notice dated 17th January, 1990. ( 21 ) THIS writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute. The show cause notice dated 17th January, 1990 is hereby quashed. On the basis of date notional promotion to the petitioner in Grade III, the petitioners would be entitled to be considered for further promotions. The petitioners shall also be entitled to the costs of this petition which is quantified at Rs. 5,000. 00.