Judgment :- The two writ petitioners are employed by Puducherry Municipality as plumbers. When the scales of pay of such persons employed by the Municipality were notified by the relevant service rules, after the introduction of IV Central Pay Commission, the Puducherry Government introduced the said scales to various employees with reference to Puducherry Municipal Subordinate Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987. The Government constituted a Pay Commission for local bodies in order to study the aspects of total emoluments, service conditions and other benefits they were enjoying at present. The said Commission recommended the scale of pay to the employees and accordingly, a direction was issued to revise the scale in accordance with the provisions of Puducherry Municipcal Subordinate Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987 and Puducherry Commune Panchayats Subordinate Services (Revised Pay) Rules1987. 2. The Government issued G.O.121 Development Department (LA) dated 14. 87 stating that the recommendation made by the Pay Commission as found in the Annexure will be made applicable. The Annexure to the said G.O cited above, stated that the employees of the local bodies are to be treated not differently from their counterparts in the local Government and their pay should be revised. The Commission recommended implementing IV Pay Commission recommendations and to grant appropriate scale of pay to employees of the local bodies and it was also accepted by the Government. 3. It is now stated that the petitioners were granted the revised scale of pay with effect from 8. 95 in the scale of pay of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1400. The grievance of the petitioners is that it should be retrospectively taken back to 6. 1986. 4. On notice being issued on the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner, Puducherry Municipality refuting the stand taken by the petitioners. It is the stand of the State Government that they have implemented Pay Commission recommendation including the scales in various categories and it was a fact that the petitioners are receiving the said scale with effect from 8. 95. 5. With reference to the retrospective operation, it is stated by them that retrospective scale cannot be granted by an automatic extension. It is also stated that if higher scale on par with the Government Departments are to be disbursed for any post in the Local Body then the scale of pay fixed by the Recruitment Rules are to be amended. With reference to the retrospective operation, it is stated by them that retrospective scale cannot be granted by an automatic extension. It is also stated that if higher scale on par with the Government Departments are to be disbursed for any post in the Local Body then the scale of pay fixed by the Recruitment Rules are to be amended. Such higher scale to a post can be implemented by the Government of Pondichery after duly obtaining the assent of the Lieutenant Governor. 6. This statement of law is seriously contested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was argued that there was no necessity to amend the Recruitment Rules and it is automatically extended as was done in other cases and in that view of the matter, the stand of the respondents should be rejected. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Purshottam Lal vs Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 1088 ) . In that Judgment, the Supreme Court held that once Pay Commission makes recommendation and accepted by the Government, then it should be extended to all the Government employees. If any recommendation was accepted by the Government and if it was not implemented the same with reference to some employees, it will violate Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. There can be no quarrel with the proposition set out in the decision of the Supreme Court cited above. 7. In the present case, the employees of the local bodies are not part of any Department of the Government, who are directly covered by Pay Commission Recommendations. In fact it is due to their demand the Pondicherry Government accepted the recommendation which came to be considered later and accepted from prospective dates. The decision taken by the learned counsel has no application to the case on hand. 8. On the contrary, it must be stated that when a Pay Commission Scales of pay are extended to other services by the order of the Government, it is purely a policy decision over which the Court cannot have any role to play. The decision taken by the learned counsel has no application to the case on hand. 8. On the contrary, it must be stated that when a Pay Commission Scales of pay are extended to other services by the order of the Government, it is purely a policy decision over which the Court cannot have any role to play. In the latest decision in S.C. Chandran vs State of Jharkhand reported in 2007 (8) SCC 279 speaking for the Bench M. Katju, J held that it is not for the Courts to enter into an arena exclusively reserved for other two wings and benefits of pay commission scales cannot be extended by introducing the theory " equal pay for equal work". 9. Further, in the present case, the respondents have contended that after recommendation, it requires amendment of the Recruitment Rules which has to be approved by Lieutenant Governor and therefore, there was delay in implementing the amendment. 10. Under the above circumst6ances, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. No costs.