Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner in the above writ petition prays to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement staff Circular No. PER/75/86 Personnel Department, State Bank of India, dated 26-12-1986 to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 45, 000/- and sanction three advance annual increments. In the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he joined Ponparappi Branch of State Bank of India as Clerk/Typist on 23-7-1984; that on 1-9-1987 at about 11.45 a.m., when the petitioner was working in the counter, a group of dacoits plundered into the Bank with sten gun with intent to loot the public money and started threatening the staff with dire consequences and after shooting down the Cashier Nandakumar, they attempted to enter into the safe, that when the petitioner prevented them from entering into the safe, the dacoits opened fire at him and caused serious bullet injuries on his right leg, but had a miraculous escape; that in spite of his injuries, he alarmed the neighbours, who thronged into and surrounded the dacoits and retrieved the valuables from them; that immediately thereafter, the petitioner became unconscious and regained consciousness only after three days; that the second respondent met the petitioner in the hospital and praised him for his courage and awarded with the cash award of Rs. 5, 000/-; that the petitioner got discharged from the hospital on 21-9-1987; that the Bank reimbursed all the medical expenses and also sanctioned four months special leave for the petitioner's complete recovery coupled with the transfer to Tiruchirapalli town Branch his willingness. The petitioner would further submit that as per staff Circular No. PER/75/86, dated 26-12-1986 certain benefits have to be conferred on the staff of the Bank on the contingency, which is binding both on the management of the Bank and its staff and as per scheme No. II, in case of injury/apprehension of dacoits, the employee is entitled to cash reward of Rs. 50, 000/-, consideration of promotion to next higher grade and in case of not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for promotion, to be paid three advance annual increments in the existing scale of pay, reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment of injury and special leave for treatment and convalescence.The petitioner would further contend that as per the said circular, he is entitled to be paid with still Rs. 45, 000/- from out of the cash award and three advance annual increments in the existing scale of pay, which have not been done; that in spite of the respondents assuring to do the same in very many communications, nothing turned out fruitful and hence left with no option and other efficacious remedy available, the petitioner would submit that he has come forward to file the writ petition with the prayer mentioned supra. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the Assistant General Manager (Personnel) of the State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Madras, besides generally denying the allegations brought forth in the petition would specifically aver that (a) the Bank is not under any statutory duty or obligation or liability to pay the petitioner the sum of Rs. 45, 000/- or any other sum or for the sanction of any advance increments; (b) that the Circular quoted is purely administrative in character and it has no statutory force : (c) that in respect of the circular, no writ petition much less praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus is maintainable in law and for the said reasons, the writ petition only becomes liable to be rejected in limine. It would further be contended that the petitioner is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and his services are governed by the provisions of Sastry Award, Desai Award as modified by the various Bipartite Agreements entered into between the Bank and its workmen and they have to be decided only by the forums constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and cannot straight away approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and would ultimately pray to dismiss the writ petition with costs.During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would lay emphasis on the averments of the writ petition. On the part of the respondents, the learned counsel would contend that the dacoity took place in the year 1987 and besides having met with all the medical expenses, the petitioner was also paid a sum of Rs. 5, 000/- in cash and he was also transferred to the nearest Branch to his permanent place of residence at Trichy, but laying emphasis on an administrative circular, the petitioner is demanding a sum of Rs. 45, 000/- and three advance annual increments. The learned counsel for the respondents would cite two judgments, the first one delivered in U.P. Financial Corporation v. M/s. GEM CAP (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in and the second one delivered in J. R. Raghupathy Etc. v. State of A. P., reported in. So far as the first judgment cited above is concerned, it is held that : "On administrative decisions, High Court cannot sit over it as an appellate authority. - In the second judgment cited above, which is a matter concerned with the shifting of the Mandal Headquarters whether it should be at place 'X' rather than 'Y' as recommended by the Collector, the Apex Court held that :" .... the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners." Citing the above propositions, as held by the Supreme Court as to what shall be the attitude of the High Court relating to the executive or administrative instructions, the learned counsel for the respondents would pray to dismiss the writ petition with costs.In consideration of the facts and circumstances as brought forth in the pleadings by the petitioner and the respondents as well and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that there is a definite remedy available for the petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act to raise an industrial dispute on the questions raised in the writ petition in hand and secondly, as it is propounded by the Supreme Court, it is undesirable on the part of the High Court to interfere with such executive or administrative instructions, which are purely the subject matters for the domestic purposes of the departments/managements. On these two legal grounds, the above writ petition becomes not maintainable and it should fail. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary and undesirable to go into the merit of the case at all, since no valid or tangible reason exists for this Court to interfere with the allegations of the writ petition especially in exercise of its discretionary powers enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In result, the above writ petition fails and the same is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 16805 of 1992 is also dismissed.