Judgment T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. The petitioners are 'Interpreters' working in the Interpreter Section of this Court. They have filed this Writ Petition challenging the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.291, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010, insofar as it relates to clause 2 of the Government Order and to direct the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners with monetary benefit from 12.12.2007. 2. The impugned Government order states that a One Man Commission constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.444, dated 09.09.2009, examined the anamolies consequent on the implementation of the recommendations of the Official Committee 2009, for revision of scales of pay of certain categories in Judicial Department and the One Man Commission made certain recommendations, which included the recommendation to revise the scale of pay of Interpreters plus Grade Pay from the existing scale of Rs.9300-34800+4700 to Rs.15600-39100+5400. This recommendation of the One Man Commission was accepted by the Government vide impugned Government Order. The petitioners have got no grievance to this extent. The petitioner's grievance is while implementing the recommendations, the Government in the impugned order, directed that the revision of scales of pay shall take notional effect from 12.12.2007, for the purpose of fixation of pay in the revised scales of pay with monetary benefit from 01.08.2010. The petitioners in this Writ Petition seek to quash paragraph 2 of the impugned Government Order and sanction monetary benefits with effect from 12.12.2007 as has been done to other category of posts who are drawing identical scale of pay in the pre-revised scale. 3. The first petitioner is an Interpreter in Gujarathi, the second petitioner in French, the third petitioner in Urudhu and fourth and fifth petitioners in Tamil cum Telugu. The first petitioner was recruited as Interpreter on 03.03.1999, and the second petitioner on 12.05.2008, the third petitioner promoted as Interpreter on 12.08.2009, from the post of Assistant and the fourth and fifth petitioners were appointed by direct recruitment on 27.08.2009 & 28.08.2009 respectively. Originally the petitioners were in the pay band of Rs.6500-200-11100+Rs.100/- as Special Allowance. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.582, dated 12.12.2007, the pay band was upgraded to Rs.8000-13500/-. This upgradation of pay band was extended to the posts in the Madras High Court service such as Section Officers, Appeal Examiner, Court Officers, Court Fee Examiners, Deputy Sheriff, Personal Assistants to The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Judges and Private Secretary to the Registrar General. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.582, dated 12.12.2007, the pay band was upgraded to Rs.8000-13500/-. This upgradation of pay band was extended to the posts in the Madras High Court service such as Section Officers, Appeal Examiner, Court Officers, Court Fee Examiners, Deputy Sheriff, Personal Assistants to The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Judges and Private Secretary to the Registrar General. However, the upgradation was not extended to the post of Interpreter and they were placed along with Assistant Section Officers. 4. It is submitted that based on the recommendations of the High Court, the Government vide letter, dated 24.03.1986, brought the scale of pay of Section Officers, Court Officers, Appeal Examiners, Interpreters, Superintendent of Translator were placed on par with Section Officers in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat service. Pursuant thereto, the salary of the above posts were fixed, rationalised and placed on the same level. However, this revision was not extended to the post of Interpreter. The Government of Tamil Nadu while accepting the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission fixed the scale of pay of Court Officers, Appeal Examiners, Section Officers and Interpreters on a different scale from that of the scale of pay fixed for Section Officers in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service. Therefore, representations were submitted seeking pay parity, since the recommendations did not evoke any response, Writ Petitions were filed in W.P.No.7158 of 1993, and W.P.No.9314 of 1993, which were disposed of with directions by orders dated 21.04.1993, and 30.06.1993, respectively. 5. Thereafter the Government set-right the pay anomaly by G.O.Ms.No.719, dated 26.05.1993. The pay of Section Officers in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service was fixed at Rs.6500-200-11100/- based on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f., 01.01.1996. This benefit was extended to the post of Section Officers, Court Officers, Appeal Examiners, Interpreters, Deputy Sheriff in the Madras High Court Service vide G.O.Ms.No.809, dated 19.06.1998. Therefore, the petitioners' endeavour is to point out that all along Interpreters were paid the same salary as that of the Section Officers in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service and whatever benefits are extended to them, are to be extended to the post of Interpreters in the Madras High Court Service. It is submitted that though the nature of work and qualification for the post of Section Officers and Interpreters are one and the same, the Interpreters are required to possess one additional qualification than the Section Officers. It is submitted that though the nature of work and qualification for the post of Section Officers and Interpreters are one and the same, the Interpreters are required to possess one additional qualification than the Section Officers. This was brought to the notice of the respondents by representation dated 04.02.2009. Thereafter, the matter was referred to a One Man Commission set up by the Government to examine the issue which was pointed out, which had occurred while implementation of the recommendations of the Official Committee, 2009. 6. The Commission accepted the representation submitted by the petitioners and recommended to revise the scale of pay of Interpreters in the Madras High Court Service from Rs.9300-34800+4700 to 15600-39100+5400/- notionally with effect from 12.12.2007. Pursuant to the recommendations of the One Man Commission, the impugned Government Order was passed, implementing the recommendations. Being aggrieved by that portion of the impugned order restricting the monetary benefit only from 01.08.2010, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. On a perusal of the above facts, it is evident that there is no dispute regarding the position that the Interpreters in the Madras High Court Service are to be treated on par in that of the Section Officers as hitherto been done and are entitled to monetary benefits on par with the Section Officers who have been granted the benefit from 12.12.2007. Therefore, the petitioners' would contend that restricting the monetary benefits only from 01.08.2010, is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners would submit that the duties carried on by them being on par with the post referred to in the Government Orders, they cannot be denied the financial benefit which they are rightfully entitled to. 8. The second respondent in their counter affidavit, while admitting the factual averments which have been set out in the preceding paragraphs, their only defence appears to be that as the revision proposal sofar as the post of Interpreter was received by the Government, after the constitution of the One Man Commission, the matter was referred to the One Man Commission which recommended revision of scale of pay on par with Section Officers notionally with effect from 12.12.2007, with monetary benefits from 01.08.2010. 9. 9. The other contention raised in the counter affidavit is that certain other omitted categories which are inter-transferable with the post of Superintendent namely the Welfare Officer, Executive Officer Grade-II, Assistant Inspector of Labour/Statistical Inspector, Deputy Inspector of Local Fund Audit, etc., for whom there was pay anomaly, as they claim pay on par with Superintendents was rectified, pursuant to the recommendations of the One Man Commission and their pay was fixed notionally with effect from 2007 with monetary benefits from 01.08.2010 as in the Petitioners' case. Therefore, the second respondent seeks to justify their action stating that there is no arbitrariness in the decision taken. Further, by referring to earlier instances where anomalies were rectified, it is pointed out that they were all implemented prospectively. Further, it is stated that if monetary benefit w.e.f, 12.12.2007, to the post of Interpreters in the Madras High Court Service alone is granted, then the same benefit may have to be extended to others, who about more than 2 lakh employees who were under various categories, whose pay have also been revised based on the One Man Commission recommendation, this would be a huge financial burden on the State exchequer. 10. Heard Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for third respondent. 11. The dispute involved in this writ petition lies in a very narrow campus. The petitioners who are working as the Interpreter in the Madras High Court Service submitted representation requesting for revision of their scales of pay on par with the Section Officers/Private Secretaries in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service on the ground that they were placed in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-11100/- on par with Section Officers/Private Secretaries in Tamil Nadu Secretariat and during the subsequent pay revision made with effect from 12.12.2007, the posts of Interpreter were omitted and their pay was not revised on par with Section Officers. The representations submitted by the petitioners, was recommended by the Registrar General High Court stating that the petitioners enjoyed pay parity with the Section Officer/Private Secretaries in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service as well as the Section Officers, Court Officers, Personal Assistants to Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and therefore, their pay has to be revised. The representations submitted by the petitioners, was recommended by the Registrar General High Court stating that the petitioners enjoyed pay parity with the Section Officer/Private Secretaries in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service as well as the Section Officers, Court Officers, Personal Assistants to Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and therefore, their pay has to be revised. This recommendation made by the Registrar General to the Government was placed before a One Man Commission constituted to examine pay anomalies. The One Man Commission accepted the recommendations of the High Court and found that the petitioners were justified in seeking revision of pay scale on par with Section Officers. The recommendation of the One Man Commission reads as follows:- The individuals holding the post of interpreters in High Court Madras and Madurai Bench have requested to revise their scale of pay on par with Section Officers/ Private Secretaries in Tamil Nadu Secretariat. The Commission observed that though the interpreters were earlier placed in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-11100 on par with that of Section Officers/ Private Secretaries in Tamil Nadu Secretariat, subsequent pay revision made to them with effect from 12.12.2007 was omitted to be extended to the post of interpreters. Taking note of the recommendations of the Registrar General, High Court and the pay parity enjoyed by the Interpreters with the Section Officers/ Private Secretaries in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service and as well as the Section Officers, Court Officers, Personal Assistants to Hon'ble Judges of High Court, the Commission finds justification to revise the scale of pay of interpreters from Rs.6500-11100 to Rs.8000-13500 (pre-revised) with corresponding revised scale of pay. Accordingly, the Commission recommends to revise the scale of pay of interpreters in High Court Madras and Madurai Bench from Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4700/- to Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- notionally with effect from 12.12.2007. 12. The Government accepted the recommendation and passed the impugned Government order, revised the petitioners scale of pay on par with Section Officers. The grievance of the petitioners is that they should also be given monetary benefit with effect from 12.12.2007, as has been extended to Section Officers and restricting the monetary benefit from 01.08.2010, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The grievance of the petitioners is that they should also be given monetary benefit with effect from 12.12.2007, as has been extended to Section Officers and restricting the monetary benefit from 01.08.2010, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The Government has raised two objections for extending the monetary benefits to the petitioners w.e.f., 12.12.2007, the first being that proposal was received from the Registrar General High Court only after the constitution of the One Man Commission to examine the anomalies, which have occurred while implementing the recommendations of the Official Committee, 2009. The second objection is that in all cases through out the State wherever the anomalies had occurred, the State has extended monetary benefits only prospectively and if the petitioners' prayer is accepted, it may result in a huge financial burden for the State exchequer. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the Government could have omitted to include the post of Interpreters while effecting revision of pay scales with effect from 12.12.2007, and implementing the same for other posts while issuing G.O.Ms.No.921, dated 11.08.2008. For which purpose, it would be necessary to look into the manner in which the post of Interpreters was treated while effecting revision of pay scales prior to the present revision. 14. The Government by order dated 24.03.1986, granted pay parity to the Section Officers, Court Officers, Appeal Examiners, Interpreters, Superintendent of Translators of Madras High Court Service on par with the Section Officers in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat and sanctioned Special Allowance of Rs.100/- per month w.e.f., 01.10.1984. This was implemented by High Court Notification dated 23.04.1986, w.e.f., 01.10.1984. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.666, dated 27.06.1989, fixed the scale of pay of Section Officers of Tamil Nadu Secretariat at Rs.2000-3500/- w.e.f., 01.06.1988. The same benefit was extended to the post of Interpreters, Section Officers, Appeal Examiners etc., by High Court Notification dated 20.12.1989. The Government by G.O.Ms.No.673, dated 24.08.1992, granted higher start up pay for Section Officers of Tamil Nadu Secretariat w.e.f., 01.06.1988. The Section Officers and Court Officers of the High Court Service filed W.P.No.7158 of 1993, seeking for the same benefit and the Interpreters filed W.P.No.9314 of 1993 for similar relief. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by orders dated 21.04.1993 and 30.06.1993 respectively. The Section Officers and Court Officers of the High Court Service filed W.P.No.7158 of 1993, seeking for the same benefit and the Interpreters filed W.P.No.9314 of 1993 for similar relief. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by orders dated 21.04.1993 and 30.06.1993 respectively. Thereupon the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.719, dated 26.05.1993, granted higher start up pay to Section Officers, Court Officers, Appeal Examiners and Interpreters in the Madras High Court Service w.e.f., 01.06.1988, and the arrears from 01.06.1988 to 31.05.1989, being credited to the G.P.F.., account and for the remaining period was paid in cash. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.04.1998, fixed the scale of pay of Section Officers of Tamil Nadu Secretariat at Rs.6500-200-11100/- w.e.f., 01.01.1996. This benefit was extended to the post of Interpreter, Section Officer, Court Officer etc., vide G.O.Ms.No.805, dated 19.06.1998, and implemented by High Court Notification, dated 25.06.1998. 15. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.582, dated 12.12.2007, upgraded the scale of pay of Section Officers/Private Secretaries in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat from Rs.6500-11100/- to Rs.8000-275-13500/- w.e.f., 12.12.2007, this benefit was extended to the post of Section Officer/Personal Assistant to the Hon'ble Judges in the Madras High Court Service w.e.f., 12.12.2007, vide G.O.Ms.No.1841, dated 15.12.2007. Similar benefit was extended to the post of Appeal Examiner, Deputy Sheriff and Private Secretary to the Registrar General w.e.f, 12.12.2007, vide G.O.Ms.No.921, dated 11.08.2008. Further, vide G.O.Ms.NO.1450, dated 29.10.2008, similar benefit was granted to the post of Court Officer and Court Fee Examiners in the Madras High Court service w.e.f., 12.12.2007. Thus, all the posts which carried identical scale of pay as that of the post of Interpreter in the pre-revised scale were granted the upgradation with monetary benefit from 12.12.2007, by the aforementioned three Government Orders dated 15.12.2007, 11.08.2008 and 29.10.2008. Therefore, there was absolutely no justification to omit the post of Interpreter when admittedly they were in the same scale of pay as that of the post of Section Officer, P.A. To Hon'ble Judges, Appeal Examiners, Deputy Sheriff, P.S., to Registrar General, Court Officers, and Court Fee Examiners in the Madras High Court Service. The petitioners having been discriminated, submitted representations dated 04.02.2009 requesting for extension of the benefit of G.O.Ms.Nos.582, 1841, 1450 and 1481 to the post of Interpreter in the Madras High Court Service. This representation was forwarded by the Registrar General to the Government with favourable remarks. The petitioners having been discriminated, submitted representations dated 04.02.2009 requesting for extension of the benefit of G.O.Ms.Nos.582, 1841, 1450 and 1481 to the post of Interpreter in the Madras High Court Service. This representation was forwarded by the Registrar General to the Government with favourable remarks. However, the Government without treating the post of Interpreter on par with the other posts and giving the benefit w.e.f, 12.12.2007 thought fit to refer the matter to the One Man Commission which was constituted for the purpose of examining anomalies. It is to be pointed out that there was no anomaly in the case of the post of Interpreter and it was a simple case of this post having been left out in the earlier Government Orders in G.O.Nos.841, 921 and 1450. At no point of time, the petitioners who were holding the post of Interpreter could be blamed for the omission. The question of referring the matter to an Anomaly Commission would arise only when interpretation is involved in comparing the nature of duties and responsibilities of two posts while upgradation was effected consequent upon recommendations of the Pay Commission or in cases where there is merger of posts consequent on implementation of Pay Commission recommendation. When all these factors were conspicuously absent in the petitioners' case there was no reason for the Government to refer the matter to the One Man Commission. 16. It has to be pointed out that at the first instance the benefit of upgradation was extended only to two posts namely, the post of Section Officer and Personal Assistant to Hon'ble Judges by G.O.Ms.No.1841, dated 15.12.2007, with monetary benefit from 12.12.2007. It is only after about more than eight months, same benefit was extended to the posts of Appeal Examiner, Deputy Sheriff, P.S., to The Registrar General by G.O.Ms.No.921, dated 11.08.2008. Thereafter, after about two months by G.O.Ms.No.1450, dated 29.10.2008, the same benefit was granted to the post of Court Officer and Court Fee Examiners with monetary benefit from 12.12.2007. Therefore, when the Government had extended monetary benefit to all the posts mentioned in the three Government Orders with effect from 12.12.2007, there is no reason why such benefit should be denied to the petitioners holding the post of Interpreter in the Madras High Court Service. 17. Therefore, when the Government had extended monetary benefit to all the posts mentioned in the three Government Orders with effect from 12.12.2007, there is no reason why such benefit should be denied to the petitioners holding the post of Interpreter in the Madras High Court Service. 17. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that denial of monetary benefits to the post of Interpreters w.e.f, 12.12.2007, is arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly discriminatory and therefore, paragraph 2 of the impugned Government Order calls for interference and accordingly, that portion of the order restricting the monetary benefits from 01.08.2010, has to be necessarily set aside and the persons holding the post of Interpreter to be entitled for monetary benefits w.e.f., 12.12.2007, on par with the other posts in the Madras High Court Service who were granted monetary benefit w.e.f, 12.12.2007, vide G.O.Ms.No.1841, dated 15.12.2007, G.O.Ms.No.921, dated 11.08.2008, and G.O.Ms.No1450, dated 29.10.2008. 18. This leaves us with the next question regarding the alleged financial difficulty. As pointed out earlier the case relating to the post of Interpreter is not a case pertaining to a pay anomaly, in fact it was on account of omission to include the posts in the earlier Government Orders. In such circumstances, if monetary benefits is granted to the post of Interpreter w.e.f., 12.12.2007, the same cannot be relied on by other category of posts who claim parity with that of the post of Superintendent on the ground that such posts are inter-changeable with that of the post of Superintendent. Such cases are cases where there is a anomaly which requires to be examined by the Anomaly Commission/One Man Commission and after recording reasons, the Commission thought fit to equate certain posts and recommended to the Government such equation and giving monetary benefit with prospective effect. However, insofar as the post of Interpreter, the One Man Commission took note of the recommendation of the Registrar General and that the post of Interpreter enjoyed pay parity with that of the post of Section Officer/Private Secretaries in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service as well as Section Officers, Court Officers, P.A. To Hon'ble Judges of High Court and found the claim to be justifiable. The One Man Commission did not embark upon any exercise to equate the post of Interpreter with that of the other posts as all along the posts enjoyed pay parity with other posts. The One Man Commission did not embark upon any exercise to equate the post of Interpreter with that of the other posts as all along the posts enjoyed pay parity with other posts. Therefore, the reason assigned by the Government that if the revised scales are implemented w.e.f., 12.12.2007 for the post of Interpreter would result in a heavy financial burden for the State Exchequer is a submission, which deserves to be rejected for the reasons assigned above. 19. It is to be further pointed out that no other posts which were granted benefit by the One Man Commission after setting right the anomaly with monetary benefit prospectively can fall back upon the case of Interpreter of the Madras High Court Service and claim retrospective monetary benefit. Therefore, by implementing the revised pay scales for the post of Interpreter in the Madras High Court Service can have no impact on any other service/post which was dealt with by the One Man Commission as the facts in the instant case are unique and distinct. 20. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order insofar as it relates to paragraph 2 restricting the monetary benefit from 01.08.2010 is quashed and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to extend monetary benefit to the post of Interpreter in the Madras High Court Service w.e.f., 12.12.2007 on par with the post of Section Officer, P.A. to Hon'ble Judges, Appeal Examiners, Deputy Sheriff, P.S. To Registrar General, Court Officers, Court Fee Examiner, which posts were granted the upgradation of scale and monetary benefit w.e.,f, 12.12.2007, vide G.O.Ms.No.1841, dated 15.12.2007, G.O.Ms.No.921, dated 11.08.2008, and G.O.Ms.No1450, dated 29.10.2008. The respondents are further directed to implement the above direction within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pay arrears. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.