JUDGMENT : - D.S. Sinha, J. Heard helplessly, in the name of justice, specious rhetoric and diatribe sans substance of Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri P. N. Khare, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 1 has also been heard. Nobody has appeared for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. THE petitioner No. 1 a Trade Union of the Officers of the Allahabad Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the Respondent No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2, an Officer of the Respondent No. 1 and a Member and Office Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 urge this Court: (a) to "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing paragraph 4 and the last paragraph of the circular dated January 20, 1999, issued by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of revised housing loan for officers, a photo copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition. (b) to issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant house purchase loan/construction of house and supplemental housing loan at par with the officer of the Sponsor Bank, namely the Bank of Baroda. Paragraph 4 and last paragraph of the circular dated January 20,1999 sought to be quashed run as under: "4. Amount of Loan Existing Limit Revised Limit Rs. 2.5 lakhs Scale II Rs. 4.00 lakhs subject to 90% of the cost or 60 times of pay (Basic + D. A.) whichever is less. "Rs. 2.00 lakhs Scale i Last Paragraph: "please note that with the introduction of enhanced limit as per detailed above, the existing facility of supplemental housing loan stands discontinued and the existing scheme for housing loan was introduced vide our earlier Circular No. HO/93/58 Dated 18-9-1993 has been discontinued with immediate effect. " 3. THE facts, so far as the Court has been able to wrest from the mass of confusion an apology of pleading, placed before. " 3. THE facts, so far as the Court has been able to wrest from the mass of confusion an apology of pleading, placed before. It through writ petition and affidavits filed by the petitioners are these: THE officers and the other employees of the Rural Banks have been clamouring for partly, inter alia in the matter of grant of house purchase loan/construction of house and supplemental housing loan at par with the officers of the Sponsor Bank and the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which directed the Union of India to constitute National Industrial Tribunal to decide the matters at issue between the Bank and employees. 4. THE Tribunal, constituted by the Union of India in pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, gave an award dated April30, 1990. Paragraph 4. 428 of the award, which is relevant for the purposes of determination of the controversy raised herein and is available on record is extracted below: "4. 428. 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-staff 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 given effect to from 1st day of September, 1987. "(Emphasis added) 5. THE matter of revision of limits regarding housing loan, conveyance loan, consumption loan and festival advance to Regional Rural Banks Staff received consideration of Government of India. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Sponsor Bank. In the instant case the Sponsor Bank is Bank of Baroda. 6. "(Emphasis added) 5. THE matter of revision of limits regarding housing loan, conveyance loan, consumption loan and festival advance to Regional Rural Banks Staff received consideration of Government of India. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Sponsor Bank. In the instant case the Sponsor Bank is Bank of Baroda. 6. AFTER due consideration of the instructions and guidelines on the question of grant of housing loan for the officers of the Respondent No. 1 issued from time to time by the Government of India and the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 1 adopted the revised scheme for housing loan which is Annexure 1 to the petition, and paragraph 4 and last paragraph whereof is under challenge in this petition. The respondent-Bank was established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks, Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act') and in relation to it the Sponsor Bank, as defined in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act is Bank of Baroda, a fact not disputed. 7. SECTION 29 of the Act invests Central Government with the power to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act generally which may without prejudice to the generality provide for all or any of the matter specified in SECTION 2 and SECTION 29 of the Act. 8. SECTION 30 of the Act confers upon the Board of Directors of the Regional Rural Banks to make regulations. The Court has not been granted by the parties the benefit of perusing either the rules or the regulations. The Court is, therefore, not sure whether the rules and regulations, if produced, would have thrown light on the controversy. 9. IT is to be noticed that in accordance with the provisions made in paragraph 4. 428 of the award given by the National Industrial Tribunal, extracted above, the matter of grant of new scale of pay, allowances and other benefits to the officers of the Regional Rural Banks which, indisputedly, include the benefit of grant of purchase loan/construction of house and supplemental housing loan at par with the officers of the Sponsor Bank, namely the Bank of Baroda had to be decided in consultation with the Central Government. Obviously, the consultation in the context of the controversy would mean the approval also. 10. Obviously, the consultation in the context of the controversy would mean the approval also. 10. A perusal of sub-paragraph (II) of paragraph 1 of the letter of the Bank of Baroda dated October 7, 1998, addressed to the Chairman, Respondent No. 1, appended to the counter-affidavit as CA-1, filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, reveals that Paragraph 4 and the last paragraph of impugned circular had already been approved by the Government of India. In this context, it will be apposite to reproduce below sub-paragraph (II) of paragraph 1 and paragraph 4 of the letter dated October 7, 1998: 'sub-paragraph (II) of Paragraph 1 "ii. We are now pleased to inform you that the Government of India has approved enhancement of the present limit of the captioned loans as per details furnished below: (1) HOUSING LOAN: Cadre Existing Limit Revised Limit Subordinate Staff Rs. 1 Lakh Rs. 1. 5 lakhs subject to 90% of the cost or 60 times of pay (basic + D. A.) whichever is less. Clerical Staff Rs. 1. 5 Lakhs Rs. 2. 5 lakhs subject to 90% of the cost or 60 times of pay (basic + D. A.) whichever is less Officers Staff Rs. 2. 5 lakhs Rs. 4 lakhs subject to 90% of the cost or 60 times of pay (basic + D. A.) whichever is less. " Paragraph 4 "4. Government of India guidelines on Housing Loan do not provide for sanction of additional Housing Loans to Officers and Workmen staff for extension/renovation of house/flats. Hence there should be no provision for sanction of loan for extension/renovation. However, if your RRB has any such provision/practice for additional/supplemental/second Housing Loans, the same be discontinued immediately. Please note that only after taking corrective steps, you should release the above enhanced limits. " Paragraph 6 of the letter dated October 7, 1998 advised the Respondent No. 1 to adopt, inter alia, approved enhancement of the existing limit of the captioned loan and discontinuance of supplemental housing loan which has culminated into the impugned paragraph 4 and last paragraph of the circular dated January 20,1999 (Annexure 1 to the petition ). 11. PARAGRAPH 7 of the letter dated October 7, 1998 requested the Respondent No. 1 to confirm and ensure that it did not deviate from the instructions given in the letter while extending captioned loan/advanced facilities to its employees. 12. 11. PARAGRAPH 7 of the letter dated October 7, 1998 requested the Respondent No. 1 to confirm and ensure that it did not deviate from the instructions given in the letter while extending captioned loan/advanced facilities to its employees. 12. IT is not disputed that the Respondent No. 1 was, under obligation to comply the instruction contained in the letter of the Bank of Baroda the Sponsor Bank, including the instructions in respect of the revision of the limit of the housing loan to be granted to its Officers. The provision in paragraph 4 of the revised scheme of housing loan for Officers of the respondent-Bank has been made in compliance with the instructions issued to the Respondent No. 1 vide letter of the Bank of Baroda dated October 7, 1998. No provision either statutory or otherwise enabling the Respondent No. 1 to ignore the instructions issued to it by the Sponsor Bank, namely Bank of Baroda, has been brought to the notice of the Court. Thus, the Respondent No. 1 is bound to comply and act in accordance with the instructions given to it by the Sponsor Bank. 13. THE impugned paragraph 4 and last paragraph of the revised scheme for housing loan for the Officers having been approved by the Union of India and being in conformity with the instructions of the Sponsor Bank, the Bank of Baroda cannot be held to suffer from any such infirmity which may justify its striking down by this Court. 14. THE contention regarding alleged discrimination raised in the petition, in the opinion of the Court, is misplaced. THE Officers of the respondent Bank and the Officers of the Sponsor Bank, the Bank of Baroda clearly fall into distinctly different categories and interse dissimilar treatment to them cannot give rise to the vice of the discrimination envisaged in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary similar treatment to dissimilarly placed persons may result in the vice of discrimination which cannot be countenanced by the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment contemplated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary similar treatment to dissimilarly placed persons may result in the vice of discrimination which cannot be countenanced by the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment contemplated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. From the cluttered pleadings contained in paragraph 8 of the petition, it appears that the claim of the petitioners is founded on the award dated April 30, 1990, rendered by the National Industrial Tribunal, constituted in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Writ Petition Nos. 7140,7150 and 132 of 1993, All India Gramin Bank Workers Organisation and others v. Union of India, Paragraph 4. 428 of the award dated April 30, 1990, which has already been extracted above clearly provides that the equation of posts and the consequent fixation of the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits for the Officers of the Regional Rural Banks at par with the Officers of comparable level in corresponding posts in the Sponsor Bank are matters which had to be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary. The provision in the impugned paragraph 4 and last paragraph has, indeed, been decided by the Central Government as is evident from the factum of approval granted by it. The Respondent No. 1 is merely implementing the decision of the Central Government and the instructions given to it by its Sponsor Bank, the Bank of Baroda. 15. ON the facts and circumstances and for the reasons given above the Court is of the opinion that the relief of quashing the impugned paragraph 4 and last paragraph of the revised scheme of housing loan for the Officers of the respondent cannot be granted to the petitioners. The claim for grant of relief in respect of issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents for the grant of house purchase loan/construction of house and supplemental housing loan at par with the Officers of the Bank of Baroda being contrary to the paragraph 4 and last paragraph of the revised scheme for housing loan for the Officers of the Respondent No. 1 adopted by its Board of Directors in pursuance of the approval of the Union of India and instructions issued to it by the Sponsor Bank, the Bank of Baroda also is untenable, and has to be turned down. 16. 16. ALL told, the petition lacks substance and deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. There is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.