An employee is not entitled to refixation of pay scale if he is appointed after the implementation of a pay revision committee report in the scale recommended by the committee.

1. - By this petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to fix the basic salary of the petitioner at the stage of Rs. 860/- in the scale Rs. 700-1800/- and claims consequential benefits of such refixation. The claim is opposed by the Bank. Facts necessary for adjudication of the dispute stated briefly are as under.

2. The respondent-United Commercial Bank issued an advertisement on 16th October, 1978 inviting applications for the post of Field Officer on posts falling under Grade "D" subsequently termed Junior Management Scale I Post. At the time when this advertisement was issued, the revision of pay scales was under consideration as acceptance of Pillai Committee Report was pending consideration. It was, therefore, mentioned that the conditions of service are liable to be revised on the Pillai Committee Report coming into effect.

3. The Pillai Committee Report was accepted and was brought into effect from 1.7.1979. The petitioner was recruited as Agricultural Field Officer and was given appointment in the Bank's Junior Management Scale I on the terms mentioned in the order of appointment dated 19.5.1980. Scale I was Rs. 700-40-900-50-1100-EB-1200-60-1800. The petitioner accepted the appointment and claimed re-fixation. By a letter dated 1.12.1981 he was informed that he was appointed in a Junior Management Grade Scale I and, therefore, there is no question of revision in his basic pay. The petitioner, thereafter, in 1984 made yet another representation, seeking fixation in the grade of 700-1800 on the hypothesis that he was to be fixed at Rs. 455 in the scale of Rs. 325-950. This representation was also rejected. The present petition is filed in 1987, to be precise, on 3.10.1987, praying as aforesaid, fixation of the petitioner at Rs. 860/- in the scale of Rs. 700-1800/-. The petition is opposed on the following grounds which are raised as preliminary objections:-

"(1) This Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter as the respondents function from Calcutta. The advertisement dated 16th October, 1978 was issued from Calcutta and therefore, the High Court of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction.

(2) The petition is filed in 1987 and claims fixation from 1981. It is, therefore, inordinately delayed.

(3) The claim arises out of contract of service between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank and no writ can, therefore, be maintained for enforcement of contractual relationship."

4. In view of the fact that the petition is pending for last 10 years, I see no reason to reject it on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction or on the ground that it is enforcement of a contractual relationship. It is true that the petition is inordinately delayed but even on that ground I do not intend to throw this petition and I, therefore, over-rule the preliminary objection and proceed to decide on merits.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the advertisement dated 16.10.1978 having represented to the petitioner that the pay of the petitioner is likely to be revised in accordance with the Pillai Committee Report, he is entitled to re-fixation according to that Report. It is canvassed that the doctrine of reasonable expectation would apply. The petitioner reasonably expected implementation of the Pillai Committee Report in the matter of his pay fixation. It is then contended that having given it in the advertisement that the pay is likely to be revised, the respondent-Bank is estopped from not applying that scale after implementation of the Pillai Committee Report by application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Opposing the petition, it was contended by the learned counsel for the Bank that none of the contentions can arise in the present case. The petitioner has voluntarily accepted the appointment on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order dated 19th May, 1980 and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and requires to be dismiss