JUDGMENT S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged an order/communication addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the State Bank of India, Johannesburg Branch, dated 16th January, 2001, re-fixing his salary with effect from 1st January, 2001. By an amendment, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by respondent No. 3 - Chief General Manager, Foreign Offices, State Bank of India, dated 12th April, 2004. By a further amendment, the petitioner challenged a decision dated 15th January, 2001, taken by respondent No. 5 - Union of India and a decision dated 8th February, 2001, of respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Chairman and Chief General Manager, Foreign Offices of the State Bank of India. Respondent No. 4 is the Reserve Bank of India. Respondent No. 5 is the Union of India. 2. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order and judgment dated 25th April, 2007, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner had not disclosed any justifiable reason for the delay in approaching the Court. This order, however, was set aside by an order and judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17th December, 2008. The Supreme Court accepted the petitioner's explanation for the delay and held that the petition ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of delay without deciding the same on merits. The Supreme Court requested this Court to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits. 3. The petitioner joined respondent No. 1 as an officer on 14th December, 1981. Respondent No. 1, by a communication dated 24th June, 2000, posted the petitioner at its Johannesburg Branch as Manager (Credit). The communication stipulated the terms and conditions of the posting. The relevant clauses are as follows: "1. Salary 1.1 A fixed salary US$ 1965 (net) per month (subject to change from time to time) will be paid to you abroad from the date of your reporting at the foreign office. Wherever taxes are payable by you on account of salary and perquisites such taxes will be reimbursed by the Bank. 1.2 Your Rupee salary in India prior to proceeding abroad will thus remain national; annual increments in this salary will continue to accrue in the normal course and will be advised to you as and when sanctioned. This will have no effect on the foreign salary payable to you till you remain posted abroad. 1.2 Your Rupee salary in India prior to proceeding abroad will thus remain national; annual increments in this salary will continue to accrue in the normal course and will be advised to you as and when sanctioned. This will have no effect on the foreign salary payable to you till you remain posted abroad. Upon your repatriation to India, you will draw the Indian salary fixed on the basis of the national increments so granted. ... ... ... ... 7.3 Your salary as well as other terms and conditions spelt out in this letter are subject to review and revision by the Bank, from time to time." Clause 4.3 mentions that the normal tenure of the posting abroad would about three years except in emergency circumstances and/or on administrative grounds in which case, the petitioner could be repatriated even before the completion of the normal tenure. 4. The petitioner averred in paragraph 7 of the petition that the Indian based officer posted at Johannesburg and Durban could not have opted to come back after the impugned order which adversely affected the service conditions at Johannesburg as by then they had already altered their position in several respects to their detriment. For instance, they had moved to Johannesburg by selling most of their belongings such as furniture and vehicles at very low prices and it would be difficult for them to replace the same upon their return. They had also admitted their children to schools in Johannesburg and had they returned to India mid-way, they would have lost the fees and the same would also have resulted in the disruption of their children's education. The petitioner, in any event, was not given an option to return. 5. As we mentioned earlier, the petitioner joined the Johannesburg Branch on 21st September, 2000. Upto December, 2000, the petitioner was paid his salary as per the order dated 24th June, 2000 viz. US$ 1965/- per month. By the impugned order dated 24th June, 2000, the petitioner's salary was reduced from US$ 1965/- to US$ 1300/-. The relevant part of the communication reads as under: "Dear Sir, REVISION OF SALARY W.E.F. 1-1-2001. Upto December, 2000, the petitioner was paid his salary as per the order dated 24th June, 2000 viz. US$ 1965/- per month. By the impugned order dated 24th June, 2000, the petitioner's salary was reduced from US$ 1965/- to US$ 1300/-. The relevant part of the communication reads as under: "Dear Sir, REVISION OF SALARY W.E.F. 1-1-2001. In the absence of availability of Cost of Living Index data at the material time salary for Johannesburg was fixed by the Working Group w.e.f. 1-1-1995 on the basis of Consumer Price Index of 1992 (as per IMF Publication of September 1995) as available. 2. With the relevant data now available, the Working Group in its meeting held on January 15, 2001 has refixed the salary on the basis of the formula approved by the Standing Committee. The detailed salary levels for various grades with effect from 1-1-2001 will be as under: Scale Net Monthly Salary in U.S.$ (at present) Net Monthly salary in U.S.$ payable w.e.f. 1-1-2001 I … … … … V 1965 1300 6. The petitioner thereafter made several representations against his salary being re-fixed. Correspondence ensued by and between the parties. The petitioner's case was also supported by various representations made by senior officers of the State Bank of India itself. In fact, the Chief General Manager, Foreign Offices, by a communication dated 22nd January, 2001, stated that there appeared to be a fundamental error on the part of the Standing Committee and requested particulars of the formula adopted for inflicting such a drastic financial blow upon the India-based officers who were posted at foreign branches of SBI. The representations in support of the petitioner's case were as follows. Johannesburg could not be compared with other centres as the cost of living there was much higher on account of various factors. The drastic reduction of 40% would cause extreme hardship. As a result of the reduction, the Manager's salary would be less than that drawn by the clerical staff of the other branches and by a clerk at the Indian Consulate in Johannesburg. The Chief Executive Officer of the Bank would, therefore, be drawing a salary less than the lowest ranking officer at the Consulate. There was a anomaly in the Index based on which the salary was reduced. The Chief Executive Officer of the Bank would, therefore, be drawing a salary less than the lowest ranking officer at the Consulate. There was a anomaly in the Index based on which the salary was reduced. Taking into consideration the normal expenses such as for education, transport, electricity, water and medication, the surplus available for food, clothing and other household necessities would be only about US$ 125 to US$ 325 per month. This would be wholly inadequate to meet basic requirements of an average family. The CEO of the Johannesburg branch of SBI made several representations to the Head Office. The representations also referred to the security concerns in Johannesburg. Details were given of the price of commodities. 7. The representations were replied to for the first time only by a letter dated 12th February, 2012 i.e. after over a year later. The first respondent stated that it was placing the matter before the Standing Committee with a favourable recommendation for granting some relief considering the hardships faced by the officers in South Africa. 8. Several letters and reminders were addressed by or on behalf of the petitioners and other India-based officers requesting for some interim reliefs till the Working Group/Standing Committee took a final decision. The communications in this regard which commenced on 9th September, 2002, went on till 27th February, 2004. Ultimately, the petitioner and other similarly situated officers, by their letter dated 2nd August, 2004, informed the State Bank of India that they had been advised by a letter dated 12th April, 2004, that their request for restoration of their salary as per the contract had been declined by the Working Group as well as the Standing Committee who stated that the salaries had been correctly re-fixed. 9. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. State Bank of India and its officers themselves considered the reduction in salary to be unfair and supported the petitioner's case for the restoration of their salary as per the terms and conditions stipulated in his letter dated 24th June, 2000 posting the petitioner at the Johannesburg office. They, however, contended that the Standing Committee did not permit the payment of salaries as per the said communication/letter of appointment at the Johannesburg office. 10. Mr. Moray rightly submitted that the petitioner has no privity of contract with the Standing Committee. They, however, contended that the Standing Committee did not permit the payment of salaries as per the said communication/letter of appointment at the Johannesburg office. 10. Mr. Moray rightly submitted that the petitioner has no privity of contract with the Standing Committee. He submitted that the petitioner is not concerned with what the Standing Committee does. The decision of the Standing Committee, therefore, cannot adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. We agree. Our attention has not been invited to any provisions of law by which the petitioner is bound by any recommendations of the Standing Committee. 11. The re-fixing of the petitioner's salary by reducing it from US$ 1965/- to US$ 1300/- - within three months of the petitioner having been posted at Johannesburg is unfair and arbitrary. The petitioner was entitled to accept the posting on the basis of the representations contained in the letter dated 24th June, 2000. It is important to note a few aspects regarding the letter. The respondents placed considerable reliance upon clause 7.3 thereof set out above. They contended that under clause 7.3 they were entitled to re-fix the salary in any manner that they may desire. We do not agree. We will also presume for the purpose of this petition that Mr. Moray's submission on behalf of the petitioner that clause 7.3 contemplates only an upward revision in price is not well founded. Even so, the impugned action re-fixing the salary cannot be justified. 12. The letter dated 24th June, 2000, does not even remotely suggest that the salary of US$ 1965/- fixed therein was merely tentative. It did not state that the salary was tentative as the petitioner did not have the available information necessary for fixing the salary. The petitioner was, therefore, justified in presuming that the salary had been fixed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors, rules and regulations. Clause 7.3 merely confers a power upon respondent No. 1 to review and revise the salary based on a change in circumstance after the letter dated 24th June, 2000. In other words, clause 7.3 did not permit an alteration in the terms and conditions stipulated therein per se. It merely permitted a prospective change in the terms and conditions based on certain valid change in circumstances. In other words, clause 7.3 did not permit an alteration in the terms and conditions stipulated therein per se. It merely permitted a prospective change in the terms and conditions based on certain valid change in circumstances. Had it been otherwise, the letter posting the petitioner would itself had stated that the salary of US$ 1965/- was merely tentative and was subject to being re-fixed upon the information relevant at that point of time being available in future. Clause 7.3 did not permit a mere change of opinion or an alteration in the terms and conditions without there being a change in circumstances. 13. Mr. Moray further rightly pointed out that even on facts, the case is not justified. The impugned letter suggests that the data pertaining to the cost of living index was not available when the petitioner was posted at the Johannesburg office by the letter dated 24th June, 2000. This appears to be incorrect. There is nothing to indicate that the material was not available. In fact, the petitioner has produced, by way of amendment, a document titled "Fixation of Salary, Johannesburg, South Africa" which indicates that the statistics regarding the cost of living index was reported by the monthly bulletin of statistics published by the United Nations in March, 2000. The letter posting the petitioner is dated 24th June, 2000. The material, therefore, was available. The respondents failed to access it. Had the respondents informed the petitioners that the material viz. the cost of living index data was not available and that the salary of US$ 1965/- would stand revised upon the receipt of the same as on the date of posting, the petitioner could have taken an informed decision as to whether or not to accept the posting. By not having informed the petitioner this vital fact, the respondents made the petitioner alter his position to his detriment. They are, therefore, estopped from doing so. The petitioner's contention that he was seriously prejudiced by the same is well founded. People adjust their expenses and take their decision based on the representations made to them. For instance, based on the salaries agreed upon, an officer would choose a school, mode of transport, type of transport as well as various articles for the day-to-day use. There are some financial commitments which cannot be withdrawn. People adjust their expenses and take their decision based on the representations made to them. For instance, based on the salaries agreed upon, an officer would choose a school, mode of transport, type of transport as well as various articles for the day-to-day use. There are some financial commitments which cannot be withdrawn. For instance, once admission is taken for children in a school it may not be possible to withdraw them from the school except at a huge financial loss. 14. Mr. Moray's reliance upon the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is, however, misplaced. He sought a parity in the pay scale between officers placed at different locations, different countries. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied on the basis of the salaries paid to persons in different countries. They are not similarly situated. They are not similarly placed. The cost of living in different countries is different. The pay must necessarily, therefore, be fixed keeping in mind various factors. These factors vary from country to country. The doctrine has no applicability in such cases and cannot be applied between people working in different countries. 15. Mr. Bhave, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India relied upon a communication dated 27th July, 1982, from the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) to various banks. The communication stated that the Government had set up a committee to evolve uniform guidelines on salaries, perquisites and other service conditions applicable to officers of Indian banks posted abroad. The communication further stated that the report of the committee had been accepted by the Government and that any change in future in the salaries, perquisites and other service conditions of the officers posted abroad may be made only in consultation with and with the prior approval of the Standing Committee constituted by the Government. The composition of the Standing Committee was also mentioned. It included the Chairmen of State Bank of India, Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank or their representatives and the Joint Secretary, Banking Division. 16. There are two answers to this contention. Firstly, this was an internal matter for the bank. The composition of the Standing Committee was also mentioned. It included the Chairmen of State Bank of India, Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank or their representatives and the Joint Secretary, Banking Division. 16. There are two answers to this contention. Firstly, this was an internal matter for the bank. There is nothing on record to indicate that the officers were put to notice that the salaries fixed by the letters of posting were only tentative and would be subject to the fixation thereof by the Standing Committee. Secondly, it appears that the decision taken in the present case was not even by the Standing Committee as constituted under the said communication dated 27th July, 1982, as the Joint Secretary, Banking Division, was not a party to the decision. Moreover, the uniform guidelines in salaries was to be evolved by the committee. No such guidelines were produced by the respondents. Mr. Bhave submitted that this was a default on the part of the Union of India who had not filed an affidavit. The petitioner, however, cannot be prejudiced by the same. Moreover, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 could have taken steps to call for the same from the Union of India. It did not do so. The petitioner cannot be prejudiced by the same either. 17. Mr. Bhate, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submitted that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as it was a matter of contract. The impugned action, however, has been challenged on the ground that it is unfair and arbitrary. There are no disputed questions of fact. The salary had been fixed. The only question is whether the impugned action of re-fixing it was in accordance with law or not and whether it was unfair and arbitrary. We have come to the conclusion that it was wholly arbitrary. 18. Mr. Bhate then submitted that it is the State Bank of India that is responsible for any financial liability. We agree. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he must look to the State Bank of India and not to the Union of India. 19. The contention that the petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay must be rejected in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court which we have already referred to. 20. We agree. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he must look to the State Bank of India and not to the Union of India. 19. The contention that the petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay must be rejected in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court which we have already referred to. 20. In view of the above, it is not necessary to consider the other submissions raised by Mr. Moray. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (aa). No order as to costs. The petitioner's dues shall be computed and paid by 30th September, 2014.