JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The Officers Association of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the RKGB in short) has prayed for quashing of the letter dated 5.6.1995 of the Chairman of RKGB (Annexure-10), whereby the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected after holding that the management of RKGB had neither denied nor withdrawn the benefit of actual re-imbursement of expenses on conveyance but only the mode and basis of re-imbursement have been changed and that the change in mode and basis of payment was within the authority of the management of RKGB. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 was enacted by the Central Government with an object for providing incorporation, regulation and winding up of Regional Rural Banks with a view of developing the rural economy by providing for the purpose of development of Agricultural Trade Commerce Industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, RKGB was created by a notification of the Central Government and the Bank of India became sponsor bank. The Bank of India (Officers and Regulation Act, 1979) deal with the provision for giving reimbursement of expenses on traveling on consolidated basis which is being given to the Officers of the Bank of India. The said benefit of re-imbursement of expenses on traveling was also extended to the employees of RKGB vide notification dated 10.4.1992 (Annexure-4). The said notification as contained in Annexure-4 was enforced on 1.3.1991. 3. It is further stated that pursuant to the order dated 1.7.1987 of the Supreme Court a National Industrial Tribunal headed by the Honble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Reddy a retired Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was constituted with regard to the disputes relating to pay, salary and other allowances and benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Bank. The said Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 30.4.1990 held that the officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Bank shall be entitled to the pay scale, allowances and other benefits at par with the officers and other staffs of comparable level in corresponding post in the sponsor bank. Thereafter an Equation Committee was constituted, which, after considering the entire matter and taking into consideration the award of the said Tribunal made various recommendations which were implemented by the Central Government. Thereafter an Equation Committee was constituted, which, after considering the entire matter and taking into consideration the award of the said Tribunal made various recommendations which were implemented by the Central Government. It is also stated that accordingly the management of RKGB on the basis of the report of the Equation Committee and also on the basis of the award of the National Industrial Tribunal, the said benefits were extended to the employees of RKGB. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that by issue of Annexure-6 dated 20.10.1993, the said benefit was withdrawn and as such the petitioner filed CWJC No. 3362 of 1993 (R) before this Court. The said writ application was disposed of on 4.4.1994 after quashing the said order dated 20.10.1993 and the matter was remitted back to the Chairman of RKGB for considering the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the representative of the petitioner and to pass a fresh speaking order. 5. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the impugned order dated 5.6.1995 as contained in Annexure-10 has been passed which is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 3 has got no authority or jurisdiction to issue the circular dated 20.10.1993 without taking into consideration the fact that the same had already been quashed by this Court and in that view of the matter, it should be held that the respondent No. 3 has committed contempt of Court by passing an order contrary to the judgment/order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 3632 of 1993 (R). 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the benefits regarding re-imbursement of traveling expenses at per with the officers of the sponsored Bank was allowed in terms of the recommendation of the Equation Committee and also the award of the National Industrial Tribunal and therefore, the respondents had no jurisdiction at all to withdraw the said benefit by issuance of Annexure-6. It is submitted that as this Court quashed the order dated 20.10.1993, as contained in Annexure-6 to the present writ application, in the earlier writ petition filed by them and therefore, the order, as contained in Annexure-10 dated 5.6.1995, affirming the earlier order dated 20.10.1993 was wholly illegal and bad in law. 8. It is submitted that as this Court quashed the order dated 20.10.1993, as contained in Annexure-6 to the present writ application, in the earlier writ petition filed by them and therefore, the order, as contained in Annexure-10 dated 5.6.1995, affirming the earlier order dated 20.10.1993 was wholly illegal and bad in law. 8. The respondents have not denied or disputed the facts and averments made in the writ petition but they have justified the issuance of Annexure-10 and also issuance of Annexure-6 on the ground that the benefits extended to the petitioner regarding re-imbursement of expenses on conveyance has not been withdrawn or denied but the same has been changed whereby earlier mode and basis of re-imbursement on monthly monetary/petrol consumption ceilings was modified and replaced with re-imbursement of actual expenses i.e. actual distance traveled by own vehicle for performing official duties and re-imbursement claimed in the specified rates on kilometer basis which, according to the respondents, did not cause any disadvantage to any officer who has performed official duties, monetarily or otherwise. Nothing has been stated on behalf of the respondents as to why the benefits which were extended to the officers of the RKGB as per with the officers of the sponsored Bank was changed for any reasonable caused. 9. In view of he admitted position that earlier the officers of the RKGB were provided the benefit of re-imbursement of expenses on traveling/conveyance was extended at par which were made available to the officers of the sponsor bank on consideration of the award of the National Industrial Tribunal and Equitation Committee report, in my view, the respondents were not justified in issuing the Annexure-6 by changing the mode in any manner regarding the aforesaid benefit of re-imbursement of expenses on traveling in case of absence of RKGB. If at all the sponsor bank would have made any sort of changes with regard to re- imbursement of expenses on traveling with regard to the officers of the sponsor bank than the issuance of Annexure-6 could have been said to be justified a case of the respondents that the sponsor bank has changed the mode of re-imbursement in expenses in traveling with regard to the officers of the sponsor bank. Therefore, there was no occasion for issuance for Annexure-6 by making any sort of change or withdrawal of the benefit which was at par with the benefit extended to the officers of the sponsor bank. Therefore, I hold that issue of Annexure-6 i.e. order dated 20.10.1993 was done in arbitrary manner and it cannot be said to be justified and consequently the issuance the order dated 5.6.1995 contained in Annexure-10 rejecting the representation of the petitioner rather justifying the issue of Annexure-6 is also bad. 10. Accordingly this application is allowed and order dated 20.10.1993 as contained in Annexure-6 as well as is the order dated 5.6.1995 as contained in Annexure-10 are hereby quashed. Respondents are hereby directed to extend the same benefits regarding re-imbursement of expenses on traveling to the officers of the RKGB which was extended to them earlier i.e. prior to issuance of Annexure-6 at par with the officers of the sponsor bank i.e. Bank of India.