JUDGMENT ( 1. ) BY invoking powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and asserting rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ to direct the respondents to give effect to Government Resolution dated 09.10.1992 from 01.01.1986 instead of 01.04.1992. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of difference in salary and also difference in increments with appropriate rate of interest and refix their salaries/pay. ( 2. ) THE first petitioner is a registered association of Additional Assistant Engineers whereas the second and third petitioners are individual Additional Assistant Engineers. They have put forward their grievance that they are meted out arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in respect of revision of pay by giving effect to the Government Resolution revising their pay from 01.04.1992, and not from 01.01.1986. ( 3. ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they were the Additional Assistant Engineers in the Narmada and Water Resources Department (Irrigation Department) of the State Government and were Diploma Holder Engineers. Right from the First Pay Commission, namely, Sarela Commission, the pay scales of their posts were revised side by side with revision of pay of the Assistant Engineers. The pay scale for Additional Assistant Engineers under the Sarela Commission was Rs.250-480 and that of Assistant Engineers it was Rs.350-500. The Second Pay Commission gave pay scales of Rs.425-700 and of Rs.550-900 respectively. In the Third Pay Commission, the revised pay for Additional Assistant Engineers was Rs.1400-2300 and for Assistant Engineers it was Rs.1640-2900. 3.1 The State Government revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 given to the Assistant Engineers to Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 01.01.1986 by a Resolution of March 1991. So far as the Additional Assistant Engineers were concerned, their pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 came to be revised to Rs.1640-2900 by Government Resolution dated 09.10.1992. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the fact that though their scale was revised, the effect was given only from 01.04.1992. The premise on which the petitioners complained discrimination is that in case of the Assistant Engineers and the Junior Geologists, pay was revised with effect from 01.01.1986 under Government Resolution of March 1991. It was contended that in their case also, effect ought to have been given from 01.01.1986. The premise on which the petitioners complained discrimination is that in case of the Assistant Engineers and the Junior Geologists, pay was revised with effect from 01.01.1986 under Government Resolution of March 1991. It was contended that in their case also, effect ought to have been given from 01.01.1986. 3.2 It appears that the petitioners had been already agitating for revision of their pay scales and representations were made prior to issuance of Government Resolution dated 09.10.1992. Special Civil Application No.451 of 1991 was filed before this Court. According to the petitioners, they withdrew that petition in view of letter dated 24.09.1992 from the Government giving assurance that they would be given the similar treatment. It stated that as per discussion in the Chamber of Deputy Secretary (Finance) in presence of Deputy Secretary (Narmada Department) and Under Secretary (Road and Buildings Department) in connection with the demands of the petitioners as explained to them, the assurance was given that the State Government would consider the case with sympathy. It is the say of the petitioners that it was after the withdrawal of that petition, Resolution dated 09.10.1992 was issued by the Government, revising their pay, but the effect was given from 01.04.1992, instead of 01.01.1986. ( 4. ) THIS court heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners, with his usual endeared vehemence submitted that the different date adopted by the respondents for revising the pay scales of the Additional Assistant Engineers was without any rationale and justification, more particularly when the pay was revised for the both the cadres pursuant to the Pay Commission Recommendations and when on all such occasions in past, the pay scales were revised simultaneously. He submitted that in case of Assistant Engineers as well as in the case of Junior Geologists the effective date was 01.01.1986, and as far as Junior Geologists were concerned, their pay scale was revised by resolution dated 17.10.1992 and effect was given from 01.01.1986. It was thus submitted that the petitioners were invidiously discriminated against in the matter of effective date of revised pay scales. It was thus submitted that the petitioners were invidiously discriminated against in the matter of effective date of revised pay scales. Learned advocate submitted that the cut off date of 01.04.1992 chosen for the petitioners was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution when compared to the cut off date of 01.01.1986 granted to the other set of employees, who according him were similarly situated. 4.2 While fairly conceding that the letter dated 24.09.1992 on the basis of which the petitioners had withdrawn their previous petition, did not constitute a promise from the State Government to revise the pay scales of the Additional Assistant Engineers from a particular date, learned advocate for the petitioners assailed the validity of 01.04.1992 to be the cut-off date, and submitted that it was irrational and had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved for revising the pay scales. According to his submission, for the purpose of pay revision to be effected after Pay Commission recommendations, the petitioners and the Assistant Engineers as well as the Junior Geologists could not have been differentiated by applying different dates for conferment of the benefit. 4.3. Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent-State was filed in which it was submitted that the State Government accepted in principle the recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission, however, the Pay Commission recommended only 29 pay scales for pay revision, as against 54 pay scales in existence under the State Government. The State Government, therefore, appointed an expert committee headed by a retired High Court Judge for suggesting scale to scale pay revision, and the report submitted by the said expert committee was accepted. In the expert committee report, the Assistant Engineers were given pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, and the Additional Assistant Engineers were given the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. It was mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply that the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers was Degree in Engineering, while for the post of Additional Assistant Engineers it was Diploma in Engineering. 4.4 It was further submitted in the affidavit-in-reply that after withdrawal of earlier petition, the State Government duly considered the case of the Additional Assistant Engineers. The Finance Department issued Resolution dated 09.10.1992 revising their pay scales from Rs.1400 2300 to Rs.1640 2900 with effect from 01.04.1992. 4.4 It was further submitted in the affidavit-in-reply that after withdrawal of earlier petition, the State Government duly considered the case of the Additional Assistant Engineers. The Finance Department issued Resolution dated 09.10.1992 revising their pay scales from Rs.1400 2300 to Rs.1640 2900 with effect from 01.04.1992. Regarding adoption of 01.04.1992 as date from which the benefit of revised pay scales would be made effective, it was stated as under: "Before issuing Government Resolution, Finance Department No.PGR -1092-16M dated 9th October, 1992 revising pay scale of Additional Assistant Engineers, State Government in Finance Department had also examined the point whether notional revision with effect from 1st January, 1986 to 31st March, 1993 can be made effective or not, on scrutiny the answer came in negative as due to notional revision immediately State Government have not bare (sic) Major Financial burden but due to pay fixation from 1-4-1992 and onward State Government had to bare (sic) additional Financial burden." 4.5 It was further contended that the pay scales of Assistant Engineers and Additional Assistant Engineers were revised initially on introduction of Pay Revision Rules, 1987 from 01.01.1986 and the pay scale of Rs.1640 2900 and Rs.1400 Rs.2300 were given to them respectively. Thereafter, a High Level Committee constituted to deal with the representations regarding pay anomaly and as per its recommendation, further revision in pay scales was granted to Assistant Engineers from 01.01.1986 and to the Additional Assistant Engineers from 01.04.1992. It was submitted that therefore it was not correct to say that the State Government had not revised the pay scale for both the cadres simultaneously. ( 5. ) HAVING considered the rival submissions, it is seen that the State Government accepted in principle the recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission, which however had 29 pay scales for pay revision against 54 pay scales in existence. The cases of Assistant Engineers and Additional Assistant Engineers for revising their pay scales pursuant to the Pay Commission recommendations, were subsequently dealt with by the Expert Committee, whereupon the benefit of revised pay scales were granted to both making effective from different dates. The government acted in accordance with recommendations of the High Level Committee constituted as per the Finance Department Resolution dated 22.06.1987 and accepted its recommendations. The government acted in accordance with recommendations of the High Level Committee constituted as per the Finance Department Resolution dated 22.06.1987 and accepted its recommendations. While dealing with the issue of pay anomaly in respect of number of cadres, it was permissible to give the pay revision prospectively and not necessarily from a retrospective date as claimed by the petitioners. 5.1 In Union of India Vs. Arun Jyoti Kundu and Others [ (2007) 7 SCC 472 ], the Supreme Court was dealing with the claim of the employees of Railways in Typist cadre who claimed that they should be sanctioned the same scales of pay as applicable to Senior Clerks, Head Clerks and Officer Superintendents Grade-II with effect from 01.01.1996. Their grievance when originally raised before the Union of India, was examined by the Anomaly Committee and relief was granted with effect from 31.01.2000. The Central Administrative Tribunal, upon being approached by the aggrieved persons, directed that the English and Hindi Typist be given same pay scales as applicable to Senior Clerks etc. with effect from 01.01.1996, and the Calcutta High Court upheld that decision dismissing the writ petitions filed by Union of India. Allowing the appeals by special leave, the Apex Court held that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and the High Court was in error in not setting aside the directions of the Tribunal. The Court observed and held, "19. ... As this Court has clarified in the decisions adverted to, it is for the Government to act on the report of the Pay Commission or either to accept or not to accept its recommendation. Once the recommendations of the pay commission are accepted, in full, it could also give effect to it from the date recommended in that behalf. But when admittedly no provision was made in respect of the English and Hindi typists and they pointed to the anomalies and the Government on the basis of the recommendation of the Anomalies Committees decided to given them the scale with effect from 31.1.2000, it could not be held to be discriminatory or to be beyond the power of the Government. It was further observed as under: "20. It was further observed as under: "20. When a concession was being extended as distinct from implementing a specific recommendation of the Pay Commission with reference to a particular point of time, it is open to the Government to provide that the benefit it proposes to give, would be available only from a notified date. As this Court has observed, neither the Central Administrative Tribunal nor the High Court, can direct the merger of any cadre. That is a policy decision for the Government to take. So long as it is not done, it is not open to the tribunal or the court to issue directions in that regard and to follow it up with what are thought to be consequential directions." 5.2 Given the facts of present case, the respondent State was within its right to extend the benefit of revised pay scales to the petitioners with effect from 01.04.1992 upon recommendations of the Expert Committee. The action on part of the respondents in applying a particular cut off date could not be dubbed as unreasonable or arbitrary in any manner, and the petitioners could not insist that instead of that date, the date 01.01.1986 ought to have been the effective date for revision of pay to them, as was done in the case of two other cadres namely the Assistant Engineers and Junior Geologists. It is also relevant to mention that in respect of number of cadres whose cases were dealt with by the Committee, the revised pay scales was approved prospectively. There was no room, therefore, for the petitioners to contend that their cadre namely Additional Assistant Engineers was singled out in not giving pay revision from 01.01.1986. The Expert Committee having gone into the merits of the grievance of the petitioners and on due consideration thereof, having revised pay scale is granted from a particular date, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision and recommendation of the Expert Committee. The matters of pay revision and the date from which such a service benefit should be granted are the questions falling within the domain of the executive government, whose decisions in such matters depend on host of relevant considerations. 5.3 In K.S.Krishnaswamy Vs. Union of India [(2006) 13 SCC 215], it was held that the recommendation of Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection with modifications of the appropriate government. 5.3 In K.S.Krishnaswamy Vs. Union of India [(2006) 13 SCC 215], it was held that the recommendation of Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection with modifications of the appropriate government. In State of West Bengal Vs. Debkumar Mukherjee [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 640] it was held that the recommendations of pay scales were not open to judicial review. In Saurabh Chaudhary Vs. Union of India [ (2003) 11 SCC 146 ] and in M.P.Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association Vs. State of M.P. [ (2004) 4 SCC 646 ], the Supreme Court dealt with the role of Pay Commission and that of the Court. 5.4 The contention that the cut off date 01.04.1992 was arbitrarily chosen was not tenable in law. It is well settled that choice of a date to be the basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary. In University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary [ (1996) 10 SCC 536 ] the Apex Court held that even if no particular reason is forthcoming for choosing a cut-off date, that by itself does not make it illegal or arbitrary. There is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, and unless the cut-off-date fixed is very wide of the reasonable mark, the decision with regard to choice thereof must be accepted. In Ramarao vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association [ (2004) 2 SCC 76 ], the Supreme Court observed interalia that if the cut-off date could be fixed, those who fall within the purview thereof would from a separate class, and such classification would neither be a class within class so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The proposition of law, which holds the field on the basis of several judicial pronouncements, is that unless the cut-off date adopted by the Government can be branded as whimsical or capricious, it could not be termed as arbitrary. 5.5 In the present case, the respondents have adopted date 01.04.1992 to be the cut-off date for revising pay scales of the petitioners-the Additional Assistant Engineers, as against the date 01.01.1986 on the ground which is eminently justified in law to be basis for classification namely that granting notional revision with effect from 01.01.1986 would have additionally burdened the State Exchequer. It is no longer res integra that the financial implication is an acceptable rationale in law for choosing a cut off date. It is no longer res integra that the financial implication is an acceptable rationale in law for choosing a cut off date. In State of Punjab Vs. Amarnath Goyal [ 2005 SCC 754 ], the cut off date was fixed as 01.04.1995 and it was held that it was on a very valid ground namely that of financial constraints. Rejecting the contention that fixing of the cut off date was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offended Article 14, the Apex Court observed: "It is trite that, the final recommendations of the Pay Commission were not ipso facto binding on the Government, as the Government had to accept and implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission consistent with its financial position. This is precisely what the Government did. Such an action on the part of the Government can neither be characterized as irrational, nor as arbitrary so as to infringe Article 14 of the Constitution." 5.6 The principle was propounded by the Supreme Court also in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association Vs. Union of India [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 664], in Rao Somashekara Vs. State of Karnataka and Other [ AIR 1998 SC 97 ], in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Bihar Pensioners Samaj [ AIR 2006 SC 2100 ], in Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association Vs. Union of India [ AIR 2006 SC 2945 ]. 5.7 In Union of India Vs. Lieut (Mrs.) E. Iacats [ (1997) 7 SCC 334 ], it was observed by the Supreme Court: "5. ... Even otherwise in view of the fact that a study team was first appointed and pursuant to its report certain benefits were given after considering the report of the study group would show that the cut-off date had a logical nexus with the decision to grant these benefits on the basis of the report of the study team. fresh financial benefits which are conferred also have to be based on proper estimates of financial outlay required. Bearing in mind all relevant factors, if such a benefit is conferred from a given date, such conferment of benefits from a given date cannot be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. ( 6. ) IN view of above discussions and reasons, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for in the petition from this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 6. ) IN view of above discussions and reasons, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for in the petition from this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. ( 7. ) RULE is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.