Judgment :- 1. The question involved in this writ appeal has caused some difficulty and some concern for us to resolve. The question hinges upon the interpretation to be given to S.2(c)(v) of the Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Ordinance, 1974 (No 8 of 1974) issued by the President and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 6th August 1974. The said Section reads : "2(c) "additional wages" means such wages, over and above the wages payable to an employee immediately before the appointed day, as may become payable to the employee after the appointed day in pursuance of any wage revision, whether by or under an agreement or settlement between the parties or any award, decree or order of any court, Tribunal or other authority, but does not include (i) to (iv)x x x (v) any increase in wages sanctioned in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Third Central Pay Commission." 2. The short question is whether the increase in wages sanctioned to the petitioner, an employee of the University can be stated to be "in pursuance of the recommendations of the Third Central Pay Commission". The petitioner has produced Ext. P1 as an abstract from the order of the Government of Kerala dated 5th April 1974. The preambulary part of the said order reads: "In February 1973, Government announced that the State scales of pay would be revised in the light of the decisions of the Government of India on the Report of the Third Central Pay Commission, taking into account Government's financial position also. After discussions with service organisations and a detailed examination of all relevant aspects Government are pleased to issue the following Orders:" In pursuance of Ext. P1, the Kerala Agricultural University by Ext. P2 proceedings dated 24-7-1974 stated as follows: "The Executive Committee as its meeting held on 20 71974 has decided to revise the scales of pay of the Kerala Agricultural University employees on the same lines as those adopted by the Government of Kerala in their orders G.O. (P) 91/74/Fin. dated 5-4-1974. and G O.(P) 122/74 Fin. dated 22 51974. Accordingly pending issue of Ordinance on the matter, it is ordered that the revision of the scales of pay as contemplated in the above Government Orders will be implemented in the University immediately." (the rest of Ex. P2 is not material) , 3. The appellant's argument, in short, is that Ext. and G O.(P) 122/74 Fin. dated 22 51974. Accordingly pending issue of Ordinance on the matter, it is ordered that the revision of the scales of pay as contemplated in the above Government Orders will be implemented in the University immediately." (the rest of Ex. P2 is not material) , 3. The appellant's argument, in short, is that Ext. P1 was clearly and directly in pursuance of the recommendation of the pay-revision commission; and so was Ext. P 2 the direct result of Ext. P1. Therefore it was argued that the Ordinance Ext. P4, the section from which we have extracted, was also in pursuance of the recommendation of the Pay Commission. There is certainly force in the petitioner's contention; but as against this, we have to take note of what the learned judge has stated, which we may extract: "In my opinion, sub-clause (v) of S.2(c) of the Ordinance will be attracted only where the increase in wages was sanctioned as a direct consequence of the implementation of the recommendations made by the Third Central Pay Commission. The dictionary meaning of the word 'pursuance' is 'carrying out' or 'implementation'. I cannot accept the argument advanced by the learned Advocate of the petitioner that sub-clause (v) will be attracted in every case where in sanctioning an increase in wages the authority concerned has adopted any of the principles incorporated in the recommendations made by the Third Central Pay Commission, or as counsel put it ‘has been persuaded" by those recommendations to sanction such an increase. Such a remote connection is not what is contemplated by sub-clause (v); on the other hand, the grant of the increase in wages should be directly attributable to the implementation of the recommendations made by the Third Central Pay Commission if the said sub-clause is to apply." We cannot certainly rule out what the learned judge has stated as an unreasonable, much the less an impossible, view. The view appears to us to be certainly a plausible one, and is supported by the dictionary meaning of the term 'pursuance' which the learned judge has extracted. In cases and situations where the learned judge has thumbed in favour of one of two plausible interpretations, it is a golden rule not to interfere in proceedings under Art.226. The view appears to us to be certainly a plausible one, and is supported by the dictionary meaning of the term 'pursuance' which the learned judge has extracted. In cases and situations where the learned judge has thumbed in favour of one of two plausible interpretations, it is a golden rule not to interfere in proceedings under Art.226. The learned judge having dealt with the matter under Art.226 and taken a view which is certainly plausible, we do not think we would be justified in interfering. We dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. Dismissed.