Judgment :- (F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.) 1. The petitioners belong to the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service working in the various judicial establishments in the city of Madras. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to G.O. Ms. No. 873 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 27.12.1993, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to continue to grant and pay to the petitioners personal pay in terms of G.O. No. 664 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.8.1992. 2. To understand the claim of the petitioners in this Writ Petition, it is worthwhile to refer to the impugned G.O. as well as G.O. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989, G.O. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992 as well as the communication of the first respondent dated 30.9.1992. 3. By G.O. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989, the Government of Tamil Nadu accepted the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission which recommended Central Government scales of pay for almost all the categories of employees of the State Government wherever category equalisation was possible. The posts for which category equalisation was not possible, the Commission recommended revised scales of pay keeping in view the duties and responsibilities of the posts. The Commission thus recommended twenty-four standard revised scales of pay in the place of existing seventeen standard scales and one nonstandard scale of pay, with effect from 1st June 1988 by merging the basic pay as on 1st June 1988 with dearness allowance including additional dearness allowance sanctioned with effect from 1st July 1988 by advancing the effect of that additional dearness allowance from 1st June, 1988. Recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission was thus accepted by the Government of Tamil Nadu under G.O. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989. 4. Paragraph 9 of the said G.O. dealt with the cases relating to persons in the category of Select/Special/Senior Grades/Efficiency Bar and Stagnation increments. As the said paragraph would be very much relevant for our consideration in this Writ Petition, the same is extracted herein: “Selection/Special/Senior Grades/Efficiency Bar and Stagnation Increments: — The Pay Commission, following the methodology of the Central Government in having removed the system of Selection/Special/Senior Grades has recommended dispensation of the present system of Selection, Special and Senior Grades and advancement to the next higher post (Special Temporary Post) in the revised pay structure. Consequent to this, the Commission has also recommended that those employees who have moved to Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts before the date of issue of these orders should be allowed this benefit as personal to them till they vacate the post. The Commission has further recommended that scale of pay is in the revised pay structure for Selection grade and Special Temporary Post for the above purpose will be the next immediate scale above the scale of pay in the revised pay structure applicable to the category of employees irrespective of the level of these grades in the existing scales of pay. Similarly, the next higher scale of pay above that of the Selection Grade to the incumbents in the Special Grade and the next higher scale of pay above that of the Special Grade to those in the Senior Grade has been recommended by the Commission. The Government have accepted these recommendations of the Commission and direct that all employees who have moved or entitled to move to the Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts before the date of issue of these orders be allowed this benefit as personal to them till they vacate the post Government also direct that persons in the Special Temporary Posts in the existing pay structure be treated as holders of Selection grade posts for purposes of fixation of pay in the revised pay structure and they will be placed in the scale of pay immediately above the scale of pay applicable to the ordinary grade post. The appropriate revised scales of pay of persons in the Selection/Special/Senior Grades/Special Temporary Posts are as indicated in Appendix-VII.” (Underlining is ours). 5. By virtue of the issuance of G.O. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989, the scales of pay were brought in line with the equivalent scales of pay of the Central Government employees. This resulted in the change over from about seventeen standard scales of pay that prevailed in the State to 25 Central Scales of Pay. Further the old schemes of Selection Grade and Special Grade was dispensed with and a new scheme came to be introduced. By virtue of such vital changes which came to be introduced by G.O. Ms. This resulted in the change over from about seventeen standard scales of pay that prevailed in the State to 25 Central Scales of Pay. Further the old schemes of Selection Grade and Special Grade was dispensed with and a new scheme came to be introduced. By virtue of such vital changes which came to be introduced by G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989 and in the light of dispensation of the old scheme of Selection Grade and Special Grade etc., with the introduction of new scheme, when certain grievances were expressed by the various employees association; with a view to alleviate and compensate their relative changes in emoluments, the Government of Tamil Nadu, while declining their plea of further revision of scales of pay beyond the equivalent Central Scales of Pay, came forward to grant a personal pay at 5% of the basic pay computed as on 1.8.1992 to the categories of staff and also who moved into the corresponding revised scales in the following scales of pay: i) All categories of staff in the pre revised scales of pay at Rs. 475 - 775 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 775-1030. ii) All categories of staff in the pre revised scale of pay of Rs. 610 -1075 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500 or Rs. 975 -1660. iii) All categories of staff in the pre revised scale of pay of Rs. 705 -1230 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040, and iv) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 905 -1545 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1600 - 2660. 6. In para 5 of G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992, it was made clear that the personal pay was sanctioned under exceptional circumstances as one time transitional measure for all the categories of the specified scales which was also made applicable to the employees in the revised Selection Grade and Special Grade of those categories. Further the said personal pay was to be computed as on 1.8.1992 and to be continued as such in the event of promotion within those categories. It was further made clear that it would not apply to any promotion beyond the scale of pay of Rs. 1600 - 2660. 7. Further the said personal pay was to be computed as on 1.8.1992 and to be continued as such in the event of promotion within those categories. It was further made clear that it would not apply to any promotion beyond the scale of pay of Rs. 1600 - 2660. 7. With regard to the implementation of such personal pay granted, clarifications were sought for by the various Departments of the first respondent. Of the various points raised by different departments, one such query was “Whether the employees promoted/appointed after 1.6.1988 are eligible for the personal pay granted in the G.O. cited? (viz., G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992)”. The first respondent gave its clarification in its letter dated 30.9.1992 to the following effect: “The persons whose category falls within the classification of categories ordered in para 4(i) to 4(iv) of the G.O. cited, promoted within these categories or appointed to these posts during the period from 1.6.1988 to 26.6.1989 are also eligible for the grant of Personal Pay. However, the persons appointed on or after 27.6.1989 are not eligible for this Personal Pay”. 8. Aggrieved against the clarification made by the first respondent to the effect that such of those persons who were appointed on or after 27.6.1989 were not eligible for personal pay, certain applications came to be filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Madras in O.A. Nos. 474 of 1993, 5400 and 5728 of 1992. In the said O.As., the first respondent took the stand that the basis for its order was the intention of the Government to sanction personal pay to the employees who had already drawn their pay in the pre-revised scales and moved over to the revised scales of pay, who alone faced the anomalous situation consequent on the revised pay scales. According to the State, the new entrants in the service who joined after the issue of the order based on the Fifth Pay Commissions recommendations (i.e.) after 27.6.1989 in the revised scales co-relating to the appropriate Central Scales of pay did not suffer any anomaly in the pay scales. In support of the said submission, the State Government placed before the Tribunal a copy of the minutes recorded after the discussion with the then Honourable Chief Minister in which the Staff Unions also participated. The said minutes were signed by the representatives of the different Staff Unions. In support of the said submission, the State Government placed before the Tribunal a copy of the minutes recorded after the discussion with the then Honourable Chief Minister in which the Staff Unions also participated. The said minutes were signed by the representatives of the different Staff Unions. It was found by the Tribunal that the benefit was intended not for all the staff of the categories mentioned in the G.O., but only to those existing personnel who were in those categories and who moved from the pre-revised scales to the revised scales. Though in the O.As. preferred before the Tribunal, the challenge was only to the first respondents letter dated 30.9.1992, clarifying to the effect that the benefit under paragraph 4 (i) to 4 (iv) of G.O. 664 dated 24.8.1992 would be available only to those who were promoted or appointed between 1.6.1988 and 26.6.1989 and not to those who were appointed on or after 27.6.1989, unfortunately, the Tribunal reached a conclusion that the cut off date namely 26.6.1989 had no reasonable nexus to the basis and the grant of special pay and with that view, set aside the major part of paragraph 4 of G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992 and also that part of the clarification that was made in the letter of the first respondent dated 30.9.1992. 9. It is only thereafter by the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 873 dated 27.12.1993, the first respondent herein replaced the earlier para 4 of G.O. No. 664 with the new paragraph 4 which is to the following effect: “4. At the same time the plea of these employees for Government to extend some sympathetic consideration has been taken note of Government consider that these categories should be positively motivated in undertaking important items of work entrusted to them. Further job responsibilities of these categories require due recognition. At the same time the plea of these employees for Government to extend some sympathetic consideration has been taken note of Government consider that these categories should be positively motivated in undertaking important items of work entrusted to them. Further job responsibilities of these categories require due recognition. Taking into account the level of pay scales of these categories of staff in the pre-revised pay structures and consequential revised Fifth Pay Commission Pay Scales, the Gover nment have decided to grant 5 per cent of basic pay as Personal Pay to all those employees who actually moved from the following pre-revised scales of pay to the revised scales of pay, i.e. to all those who were appointed/promoted prior to 27.6.1989 (i.e.) the date of issue of orders introducing the Fifth Pay Commission scales of pay: — (i) All employees in the pre-revised scale of pay at Rs. 475 - 775 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 775 -1030. (ii) All employees in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 610 -1075 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 950 - 1500 or Rs. 975 - 1660. (iii) All employees in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 705 - 1230 over to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1200 - 2040; and (iv) All employees in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 905 - 1545 moving over the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1600 - 2660”. (Underlining is ours). 10. It is significant to note that irrespective of the Administrative Tribunals observations made in para 5 of its order dated 17.9.1993 in O.A. Nos. 474 of 1993, 5400 and 5728 of 1992, fortunately in the impugned G.O., the first respondent while replacing para 4 made it clear that the grant of personal pay applicable to the four categories of pay would be available only to those who were appointed/promoted prior to 27.6.1989, i.e. the date of issue of orders introducing the Fifth Pay Commission scales of pay. 11. A conjoint reading of the above G.O. Ms. No. 666, dated 27.6.1989, G.O. Ms. 664, dated 24.8.1992, Governments letter dated 30.9.1992 and the impugned G.O. Ms. 11. A conjoint reading of the above G.O. Ms. No. 666, dated 27.6.1989, G.O. Ms. 664, dated 24.8.1992, Governments letter dated 30.9.1992 and the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 873 dated 27.12.1993, thus makes it very clear that the grant of personal pay was meant only to those employees who were appointed/promoted prior to 27.6.1989 and also who were in the pre-revised scales of pay of Rs. 475 - 775, 610 - 1075; 705 - 1230; and 905 - 1545 and who actually moved from that pre-revised scales of pay to the corresponding revised scales of pay, namely. a) 475 - 775 ? 775 - 1030; b) 610 - 1075 ? 950 - 1500 or 975-1660 c) 705 - 1230 ? 1200 -2040; and d) 905 - 1545 ? 1600 - 2660. 12. In para 9 of G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989, the State of Tamil Nadu, while accepting the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission with particular reference to Selection/Special/Senior Grades/Efficiency Bar and Stagnation Increments drawing employees which came to be dispensed with while revising the scales on par with the Central Government pay structure, directed that; “all employees who have moved or entitled to move to the Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts before the date of issue of these orders; be allowed this benefit as personal to them till they vacate the post”, and thereby made it amply clear that the State Government intended to protect the personal benefit only to such of those employees who have moved or entitled to move to the Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts before the date of issue of the G.O. namely 27.6.1989 and they should be allowed to have the said benefit as personal to them till they vacate their posts. In other words, in G.O. Ms. No. 666, dated 27.6.1989 itself, the State of Tamil Nadu, came forward to protect certain benefits to those categories of employees who were in the categories of Selection, Special and Senior Grades, etc. as on that date, namely 27.6.1989 and also protected that benefit till they vacate their posts. Thereafter what all remained to be done was only the implementation of that benefit that was already conferred in G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989. G.O. Ms. as on that date, namely 27.6.1989 and also protected that benefit till they vacate their posts. Thereafter what all remained to be done was only the implementation of that benefit that was already conferred in G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989. G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992, only made it clear and specifically noted such of those categories of employees who were covered by paragraph 9 of G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989 and in respect of whom such benefit could be actually extended. In other words, G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992 only crystallized the benefit which was made available to those employees who moved or entitled to move to the Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts before the date of issue of G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989. Under G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992 while crystallizing the said benefit available to those employees, the rate of personal benefit namely, 5 per cent, the date with reference to which such benefit should be worked out namely, 1.8.1992 and the relevant pre-revised scales in which those category of employees who were appointed/promoted prior to 27.6.1989 and who moved or entitled to move as on 26.6.1989 came to be clearly set out. In as much as, the applicability of the grant of personal benefit which was granted in G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989 though had been categorically set out in G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992 in unambiguous terms, when certain departments could not still understand the purport and intent of that part of G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989 and the consequential G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992, the same came to be clarified by the first respondent in its communication dated 30.0.1992. 13. We are therefore of the clear and firm opinion that what was clarified by the first respondent with regard to the eligibility of those employees for whom payment of personal benefit was made available under the above said G.O.s, was perfectly in order and the same did not call for any interference. Nevertheless at the instance of certain other persons who moved the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 474 of 1993, 5400 and 5728 of 1992, though the Tribunal came to set aside certain part of para 4 of G.O. Ms. Nevertheless at the instance of certain other persons who moved the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 474 of 1993, 5400 and 5728 of 1992, though the Tribunal came to set aside certain part of para 4 of G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992 as well as Point No. 5 clarified by the first respondent in its clarification letter dated 30.9.1992, the impugned G.O. fortunately maintained the real intent and purport of G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989 without giving any scope for ambiguity of controversy. We also hold that in as much as we have already held that the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 873 dated 27.12.1993 is in consonance with what was really intended to be granted by way of personal pay to those special categories of employees as provided in G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989, the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 made in O.A. Nos. 474 of 1993, 5400 and 5728 of 1992 was of no consequence and virtually became inoperative. 14. We are therefore satisfied, that irrespective of the order of the Tribunal dated 17.9.1993, the first respondent has come forward with the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 873 dated 27.12.1993 succinctly setting out as to who would be really entitled to avail the benefit of the grant of personal pay and the protection of it. There is therefore absolutely no scope for interfering with the said G.O. Therefore we are not in attacking the said G.O. for the various grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 15. Be that as it may, as far as the merits of the claims of the petitioners are concerned, it will have to be stated that the petitioners have not come forward with the full particulars as to whether they would fit in to those categories for whom the protection of personal pay as provided under G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989 was made; with particular reference as to whether they moved or entitled to move to the Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts before the date of issue of the said G.O. in order to make them eligible for the grant of such benefit and also to restrain it till they vacate their posts. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989 was made; with particular reference as to whether they moved or entitled to move to the Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts before the date of issue of the said G.O. in order to make them eligible for the grant of such benefit and also to restrain it till they vacate their posts. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they had already moved or entitled to move to the Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts as provided under G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989 before the date of issue of the said G.O. in order to sustain their claims for retention of personal pay. As per the averment of the first petitioner who alone has sworn to an affidavit, it is nowhere claimed that she moved or entitled to move to the Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts before the date of issue of the said G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989. None of the averments in the said affidavit with reference to the first petitioner would enable her to claim the benefit of protection of personal pay as of right based on G.O. Ms. 666 dated 27.6.1989. Dehors the above, no such particulars have been furnished with reference to the other petitioners as well with regard to their movement or entitlement to be moved to the Selection, Special and Senior Grades and Special Temporary Posts prior to the date of issue of G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989. Therefore it will have to be concluded that the petitioners entered into the said category only subsequent to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989. In such circumstances, there is absolutely, no scope for extending the benefit of the grant of personal pay to any of the petitioners based on G.O. Ms. No. 666 dated 27.6.1989 and the consequent G.O. Ms. No. 664 dated 24.8.1992 as well as the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 873 dated 27.12.1993. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, all connected W.M. Ps. are closed.