JUDGMENT :- 1. W.P.(MD)Nos.472 and 473 of 2008, are disposed of by a common order, as the common question of law, and facts are involved. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.(MD).No. 472 of 2008. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned part of the orders, dated 4th April 2007, vide which while granting benefit of the revision of pay scale, the petitioner had been denied the monetary benefit from due date till the date of the order of the Government issued vide G.O.(2D) 46, Environment and Forest Department, dated 10.04.2007. 4. The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. Examination in March 1972, and thereafter, qualified I.T.I. Trade test in the Trade of Electrician in May 1975, in Christian Mission Service Industrial Training Institute, Azhagiapandipuram. 5. The petitioner was appointed as Protective worker in the Corporation, and thereafter, as the Assistant Mechanic in Keeriparai Rubber Factory of the Corporation with effect from 01.06.1991, in the scale of pay of Rs.825-15-900-20-1200. 6. The Government of Tamil Nadu, vide, G.O.Ms.No. 739, Finance (PC) Department, dated 18.12.1996, ordered the revision of pay scales of Trade Posts, in various categories in the Technical Education Department. The post of Assistant Mechanic was merged and designated as Mechanic Grade-II, in the scale of pay of Rs.610-1075 for ordinary Grade, and Rs.705-1230 for selection Grade, notionally with effect from 01.10.1984. This scale was subsequently revised to Rs.950-1500, as per the recommendation of V pay commission. 7. The respondent corporation, while revising the scale of pay for the post of Wireman, Lineman, Plumber, etc., who possessed, the I.T.I qualification, as Rs.950-1500, did not grant a similar benefit, to the post of Assistant Mechanic, having similar qualification, who were in the same pay scale as that of Wireman, Lineman, Plumber, etc. 8. The only reason for non-grant of scale, was that in the Government Order, revising the pay scale to the post of Assistant Mechanic was not mentioned. The reason for this, was that as per G.O.Ms.No. 739, Finance (PC) Department, dated 18.12.1996, the post of Assistant Mechanic was merged with that of Mechanic. 8. The only reason for non-grant of scale, was that in the Government Order, revising the pay scale to the post of Assistant Mechanic was not mentioned. The reason for this, was that as per G.O.Ms.No. 739, Finance (PC) Department, dated 18.12.1996, the post of Assistant Mechanic was merged with that of Mechanic. The petitioner and similarly situated employee, being aggrieved by the discrimination, filed a detailed representation, with the Managing Director, for grant of revised pay scale of Rs.950-1500 from the date of appointment, and scale of pay of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4950 with effect from 10.01.1996, as per the recommendation of the successive Pay Commissions. The representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. 9. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the rejection of representation, for fixation of the pay in the appropriate grade, filed an Appeal before the Board of Directors, but, no decisions were taken on the Appeal. 10.This forced the petitioner to file W.P.(MD).No. 9457 of 2006 in this Hon'ble Court, which was disposed of by this Court, with the direction to the respondent, to consider the Appeal filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon. 11. The matter was considered by the respondent No.2, in pursuance to the directions of this Court, and the claim of the petitioner was favourably recommended to the State Government. The reason being that according to the service rules, the petitioner was entitled to the same pay, as applicable to the Government employees, holding the similar post in the Government Department. 12.The recommendation was accepted but while granting the revision of pay scale to the petitioner from 10.06.1998, the actual benefit has been denied, by ordering that the monetary benefits will only be granted from the date of issuance of the Government Order ie., with effect from 10.04.2007. 13. The impugned order has been challenged, on the ground, that once it was held, that the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950 - 1500/- (now Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4950) with effect from 10.06.1998, there can be no reason, to deny the monetary benefit, as the respondent can not take benefit of their own wrong, in not granting the pay scale admissible to the petitioner, at the appropriate time. 14. 950 - 1500/- (now Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4950) with effect from 10.06.1998, there can be no reason, to deny the monetary benefit, as the respondent can not take benefit of their own wrong, in not granting the pay scale admissible to the petitioner, at the appropriate time. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the reading of the impugned order shows, that the department has accepted the submission of the petitioner, that he was entitled to pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- and the revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4950/- with effect from 10.06.1998. Non grant of consequential benefit, therefore, is totally arbitrary and thus amounts to colourable exercise of power. 15. Learned Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, submitted, that the benefit of the pay revision can be available to the petitioner, only from the passing of the date of order, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order, in granting monetary benefits from the date of order, while notionally fixing the pay scale of the petitioner with effect from 10.06.1998. 16. It is also the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit, as they did not fall within that category, of whose posts whose pay was revised. The post of Assistant Mechanic, was not covered under the notification, revising the pay scale, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the respondents. 17. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the post of Assistant Mechanic, was merged with that of Mechanic, the fact, that the post of Assistant Mechanic was not included in notification, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit, which the petitioner was entitled to. Admittedly the petitioner had the requisite qualification for the post of Mechanic. In view of Rule 34 of the Service Rule of the Rubber Corporation, the employees are to be treated as par with employees including similar post in Government Department. The petitioner therefore was entitled to scale of Mechanic in pursuance to pay revision. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also correct, in contending that nobody can take benefit of its own wrong, once the respondents failed, to grant the relief to, which the petitioner was entitled to. The petitioner therefore was entitled to scale of Mechanic in pursuance to pay revision. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also correct, in contending that nobody can take benefit of its own wrong, once the respondents failed, to grant the relief to, which the petitioner was entitled to. The actual monetary benefit can not be denied, specially, when the petitioner has been prosecuting his remedy firstly, by making representation, and then filing Writ Petition in this Hon'ble Court. 19. The action of the respondents in not granting monetary benefits, while fixing pay scale of the petitioner, on the fact of it, is arbitrary, thus hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 20. Consequently, these Writ Petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to the monetary benefits in pursuant to the revision of scale of pay from the date of revision. The consequential benefit arising from this order be released to the petitioners within three months, of the receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.