Judgment 1. The Tamil Nadu Judicial Department Retired Process Servers Association through its President has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of G.O.Ms.No.1011, Home (Courts-V) Department, dated 07.12.2010, on the ground that the benefit of the pay revision (pension), as the consequence of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, should be made available to them from 01.01.1996 and not from 01.04.2003 and as such from the said date. 2. It is the say of the petitioner that they were already in service when the Shetty Commission was constituted. The Retired Judicial Officers have been given the benefit from 01.01.1996, so as to confer the benefit of the revised scale of pay on persons who have retired or died even between 01.01.1996 and 30.06.1996. A reference is made to the order dated 14.09.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.7400 of 2010 filed by the Association of Retired Judges, wherein this Court while recording the grievance of the retired Judicial Officers, accorded sanction to the concession in the form of a fresh Government Order, granting the benefits to those who retired even prior to 01.01.1996, putting them on par with those who retired thereafter. The petitioner Association submitted a representation on 14.08.2010, seeking implementation of the recommendations from 01.01.1996 as against from 01.04.2003, but to no avail, which prompted them to file the writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been specifically averred that the First National Judicial Pay Commission on Improvement of Service Conditions of Non-Judicial Staff in Subordinate Courts submitted its recommendations only during 2003. The Honourable Supreme Court, in terms of its order dated 15.07.2008, specifically directed that these recommendations should be given effect to only from 01.04.2003 in respect of non-judicial staff in subordinate courts, which has been followed. On the other hand, qua judicial officers, the Honourable Supreme Court directed the effective date for monetary benefits from 01.07.1996. It is, thus, pleaded that there is no parity between the two sets of persons. 4. We had called for information even from different High Courts qua this issue and received some response. These responses show that it is only eight High Courts where the implementation is taken from 01.04.2003. In some of the cases, the matter is still under consideration, while others have not responded. 4. We had called for information even from different High Courts qua this issue and received some response. These responses show that it is only eight High Courts where the implementation is taken from 01.04.2003. In some of the cases, the matter is still under consideration, while others have not responded. In no High Court there has been implementation prior to the cut-off date. 5. It can hardly be doubted that a parity cannot be sought between the judicial officers and the other staff, as they are not identically placed. Even in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court separate dates came to be stipulated for implementation of the recommendations. We had put to the State Government whether they are inclined to show compassionate view of the matter by seeking to give the benefit to even the staff like that of the petitioner Association from 01.01.1996, but there was no positive response. In such a circumstance, it is not possible to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the payments to be made from the cut-off date of 01.01.1996, instead of 01.04.2003. 6. The aforesaid does not mean that the State Government is precluded from granting the benefits and we can only hope that the State Government takes a more compassionate view of the matter taking into consideration the plight of the retired people and the inflation over the last few years, so that they can spend their retired period little more comfortably. 7. We, thus, close the present writ petition with the above observations. No costs.