JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. By this writ petition, the petitioner Union of India and others challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 25th October, 2010 allowing the original application filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 28 and directing the petitioners to grant the monetary benefits to the respondent Nos.2 to 28 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 2. The facts involved in this writ petition are very brief. The respondent Nos.2 to 28 are the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working in the Indian Bureau of Mines. The 5th Pay Commission made some recommendations in respect of pay revision for the employees in various cadres of the Government of India. However, in the said recommendations, there was no specific recommendation for hike in the pay scale of Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working in the Indian Bureau of Mines. According to the respondent Nos.2 to 28, as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, higher pay scale and grade was recommended for the Senior Technical Assistants working with the Geological Survey of India, but there was no specific recommendation in respect of the Senior Technical Assistants working with the Indian Bureau of Mines. According to the respondent Nos.2 to 28, as Geological Survey of India and the Indian Bureau of Mines fall under the same Ministry and the qualifications for the Senior Technical Assistants (Survey) working in the Geological Survey of India are similar to the qualifications possessed by the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working in the Indian Bureau of Mines, they were also entitled to the up gradation of pay scale and grade as per the recommendations in the case of Senior Technical Assistants working with the Geological Survey of India. In view of the grievance of the respondent Nos.2 to 28, the matter was referred to the anomalies Committee and the anomalies Committee recommended that the Senior Technical Assistants working with the Indian Bureau of Mines were also entitled to revision of pay scale at par with the Senior Technical Assistants working with the Geological Survey of India. Though the anomalies Committee recommended that the Senior Technical Assistants working with the Indian Bureau of Mines were also entitled to revision of pay scale, the anomalies Committee did not specify the date from which the benefits could be extended to them. Though the anomalies Committee recommended that the Senior Technical Assistants working with the Indian Bureau of Mines were also entitled to revision of pay scale, the anomalies Committee did not specify the date from which the benefits could be extended to them. The anomalies Committee recommended that the benefit of higher pay scale could be granted to the Head Assistant and the office Superintendent working with the Indian Bureau of Mines from 1.1.1996, but the anomalies Committee did not recommend that the recommendations should be implemented for the Senior Technical Assistants working with the Indian Bureau of Mines from a particular date. The petitioners granted the up gradation of pay scale for respondent Nos.2 to 28 and the other Senior Technical Assistant working with the Indian Bureau of Mines by the order dated 6.10.2003 notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and as per the order, the actual financial benefits were made available w.e.f. 30.10.2003, that is the date of the order. 3. Being aggrieved by the action on the part of the petitioners of granting the actual monetary benefits in favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 28 from 6.10.2003, the respondent Nos.2 to 28 filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeked a direction against the petitioners to grant actual monetary benefits of the up gradation of the pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record allowed the original application and directed the petitioners to pay the actual monetary benefits flowing from the up gradation of the pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The order of the Tribunal is impugned by the petitioners in the instant petition. 4. Smt. M.R. Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is well settled that the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to interfere with the policy decision of the Government of granting a particular monetary benefit to a class or grade of employees from a particular date. It is submitted that the 5th Pay Commission did not recommend the up gradation of the pay scale for the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines, though the Commission recommended the up gradation of pay scale for the Senior Technical Assistants (Survey) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines. It is submitted that the 5th Pay Commission did not recommend the up gradation of the pay scale for the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines, though the Commission recommended the up gradation of pay scale for the Senior Technical Assistants (Survey) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines. It is submitted that in view of the grievance of the respondents, the matter was referred to the anomalies Committee and the anomalies Committee recommended the grant of similar benefit to the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines. It is submitted that though the anomalies Committee recommended that the Senior Technical Assistants working with the Indian Bureau of Mines would be entitled to a revision of pay scale, the anomalies Committee, in its wisdom did not recommend the date from which the pay revision could be implemented. It is submitted by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in Union of India v. Arun Jyoti Kundu (2007) 7 SCC 472 that it would not be for a Court or a Tribunal to interfere with the policy matters of the Government and direct the grant of monetary benefit to the employees with retrospective effect. It is submitted that the facts involved in the said reported judgment are similar to the facts involved in this case and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the said decision that the Tribunal had committed an error in directing the Union of India to grant higher pay scale to the Typists (English and Hindi language) w.e.f. 1.1.1996, on par with the clerks working in the same cadre of the same department of the Railways. It is submitted that the Tribunal erroneously held that if the anomalies Committee had directed the up gradation of the pay scale for the post of Superintendent and Head Assistant in Geological Survey of India and Indian Bureau of Mines from 1.1.1996, there was a discrimination in not granting the monetary benefits of higher pay scale to the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is submitted that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the relief in favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 28. 5. Shri R.K. Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 28 has supported the judgment of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the relief in favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 28. 5. Shri R.K. Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 28 has supported the judgment of the Tribunal. It is submitted that when the anomalies Committee had recommended that the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines were also entitled for up gradation in the pay scale at par with the Senior Technical Assistants working in the Geological Survey of India, it was necessary for the petitioners to grant the monetary benefits of the up gradation to the respondent Nos.2 to 28 w.e.f. 1.1.996. It is submitted that the anomalies Committee had recommended that for the Head Assistant and Superintendent working in the Indian Bureau of Mines, the revision of pay scale and the actual monetary benefits should be granted from 1.1.1996 and the Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held that similar benefits were liable to be granted in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 28 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly observed that the policy of the petitioners of granting actual benefits to the respondent Nos.2 to 28 from 2003 was discriminatory and the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to grant the actual monetary benefits to the respondent Nos.2 to 28 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in State of M.P. v. Mala Banerjee (2015) 7 SCC 698 and (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 506 to substantiate his submission that the State cannot treat similarly situated employees differently. 6. On a perusal of the impugned order and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein above, it appears that the case in hand stands squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Arun Jyoti Kundu (2007) 7 SCC 472 . In the said case also, just like in the present case, there was no recommendation by the Pay Commission for grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Typists (English and Hindi) working with Railways while such benefit was recommended for the cadre of clerks working with the Railways and there was a merger of the two cadres. In the said case also, just like in the present case, there was no recommendation by the Pay Commission for grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Typists (English and Hindi) working with Railways while such benefit was recommended for the cadre of clerks working with the Railways and there was a merger of the two cadres. In the reported judgment also, the 5th Pay Commission did not recommend the revision of pay scale for the Typists and the revision of pay scale was recommended for the clerks though both Typists and clerks were working in the same cadre. In the reported judgment also, just like in this case, the matter was referred to the anomalies Committee and the anomalies Committee recommended that the benefits that were made available to the clerks as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission should also be made available to the Typists. On the basis of the recommendations of the anomalies Committee, in the reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Typists were granted monetary benefits of higher pay scale w.e.f. 31.1.2000. The action on the part of the Union of India of granting the monetary benefits of higher pay scale w.e.f. 31.1.2000 was challenged by the Typists before the Tribunal on the ground that they were also entitled to the actual monetary benefits as were granted to the clerks w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In the said case the Tribunal had allowed the original application filed by the Typists and had directed the Union of India to grant monetary benefits of higher pay scale to the Typists, at par with the clerks, w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and held that it would not be necessary for the Government to implement a recommendation of the Pay Commission and it would also be open for the Government to provide the benefits it proposes to give, only from a notified date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and held that it would not be necessary for the Government to implement a recommendation of the Pay Commission and it would also be open for the Government to provide the benefits it proposes to give, only from a notified date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was open to the Government to extend the monetary benefit to its employee w.e.f. a particular date on the basis of some anomalies found in the report of the 5th Pay Commission and in such a case there would be no discrimination as the 5th Pay Commission report had not provided for any benefit to the Typists. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the 5th Pay Commission had not recommended the payment of higher pay scale for the post of Typist the Government chose to give them the relief w.e.f. 31.1.2000 and the Tribunal had no authority to hold that the Union of India had acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when admittedly no recommendation was made for the English and Hindi Typists in the Pay Commission recommendations and when as per the recommendations of the anomalies Committee, higher pay scale was granted to the Typists from 31.1.2000, it could not be said that the action of the Union of India was discriminatory or beyond its power. The facts involved in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court are almost identical. In the present case also, the 5th Pay Commission had not recommended that the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines should be granted a pay revision. When the matter was referred to the anomalies Committee, the anomalies Committee recommended that the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working in the India Bureau of Mines could also be granted the up gradation of pay scale at par with the Senior Technical Assistants working in the Geological Survey of India. On a perusal of the minutes of the anomalies Committee, it appears that though the anomalies Committee recommended the revision of pay scale for the Senior Technical Assistants working in various disciplines with the Indian Bureau of Mines, for which masters degree qualification was prescribed, it was not recommended that the up gradation or revision in the pay scale should be made from a particular date. The anomalies Committee, however, on a consideration that the post of Superintendent and Head Assistant was a promotional post and the mode of recruitment was 100 % by promotion, recommended that the revision of pay scale for the said posts could be made retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1996. While recommending the pay revision for the two posts, Superintendent and Head Assistant, reasons are recorded by the anomalies Committee in the minutes of the meeting for recommending the benefits of the higher pay scale retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1996, but the anomalies Committee has not recommended so, in the case of the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines. If that be the case, it cannot be said that the petitioners had discriminated between the Head Assistant and Superintendent and the Senior Technical Assistants (Geology) working with the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Tribunal has committed a serious error in interfering with the policy of the petitioners in granting the financial benefit of the up gradation of the pay scale w.e.f. 6.10.2003. We humbly follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Jyoti Kundu and others (supra), which applies to this case with full force. The judgment reported in State of M.P. v. Mala Banerjee (2015) 7 SCC 698 and relied on by the counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 28 is distinguishable on facts and cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the implementation of the second Kramonnati Scheme held that by postponing the said Scheme by four years, the State of Madhya Pradesh had departed from the basic object of the Scheme. Such is not the case here. The judgment reported in (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 506 cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. The issue involved in the case in hand stands answered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment reported in Arun Jyoti Kundu and others (Supra). Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The original application filed by the respondent No.2 to 28 stands dismissed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.