Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to implement the recommendations of the Single Member Committee, constituted by G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 03.01.2005, for the post of Field Supervisors from 1.1.1996 and grant benefits flowing therefrom to the Field Supervisors forthwith. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 4.4.2007. Pending the writ petition, an application for interim direction was dismissed on 17.6.2008. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 25.8.2008 together with certain documents. After the petitioners were holding the post of Field Supervisor, after the V Pay Commission, the scales were revised from Rs.3050-4090 to Rs.4000-6000 and subsequently on VI Pay Commission, it was revised to Rs.5200-20200+2400 GP. 3. The petitioners filed O.A.No.892 of 1999 seeking for a revision of their pay from Rs.3050-4590 to Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996. The Original Application was disposed on 4.5.2001 directing the respondents to consider the representation. Even before the receipt of the order of the Tribunal, the Government of Puducherry addressed the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider the grievance of the Field Supervisors. The Government of India after examination of the request of the Government of Puducherry, decided to raise the pay scale from Rs.3050-4590 to Rs.4000-6000 in the V Pay Commission. After receipt of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 4.5.2001, the issue has been once again considered fresh in the light of the observation made by the Tribunal. The Government of India by their communication dated 24.8.2001 informed that it was not possible to further enhance the pay scales of Field Supervisors. 4. The petitioners went before the Tribunal in O.A.No.427 of 2002. The Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 24.8.2001 turned down the prayer of the petitioners. Hence, the petition is once again before this Court seeking for a direction to consider the scale of pay in the light of the One Man Committee’s recommendation. 5. Unless the recommendation of the Pay Commission is accepted by the State, the question of giving direction to the State will not arise. In the present case, after the V Pay Commission, VI Pay Commission has not accepted the petitioner's grievance and therefore the petitioners cannot as a matter of right demand acceptance of some Committee, which has not been accepted by the Union Territory and the specific request was also negatived by the Central Government. In the present case, after the V Pay Commission, VI Pay Commission has not accepted the petitioner's grievance and therefore the petitioners cannot as a matter of right demand acceptance of some Committee, which has not been accepted by the Union Territory and the specific request was also negatived by the Central Government. 6. It is open to the State or the Central Government to accept the Commission’s recommendations or reject the same and the Court cannot give any direction to implement a particular report. In the present case even assuming there was a One Man Commission recommendations, in the absence of State accepting the same, no mandamus will lie. 7. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Arun Jyoti Kundu reported in (2007) 7 SCC 472 . In paragraph No.16, it was observed as follows: "16. We had recently held in K.S. Krishnaswamy v. Union of India that the recommendations of Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection. Speaking for the Bench, one of us (H.K. Sema, J.) stated: (SCC p. 220, para 17) “It is well-settled principle of law that recommendations of the Pay Commission are subject to the acceptance/rejection with modifications of the appropriate Government.” So, unless the Government has accepted the recommendation to merge the cadres, the court cannot proceed on the basis of the recommendation alone or to direct the Government to accept the recommendation. In this context we have also to take note of the decisions of this Court in State of W.B. v. Deb Kumar Mukherjee that the recommendations of pay scales are not open to judicial review and the one in State of U.P. v. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh to the effect that the evaluation of typists for the purposes of pay scales must be left to the expert body. The role of the Pay Commission and that of the court has also been dealt with by the decision of this Court in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India and M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers' Assn. v. State of M.P. In the latter decision it was held by this Court that Pay Commissions are constituted for evaluating duties and functions of the employees and the nature thereof vis-à-vis the educational qualifications there for. v. State of M.P. In the latter decision it was held by this Court that Pay Commissions are constituted for evaluating duties and functions of the employees and the nature thereof vis-à-vis the educational qualifications there for. Although the Pay Commission is an expert body, the State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept its recommendations." 8. In the light of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.