IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 16007 of 2008. Decided on: 21.2.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Smt. Shubh Kanta Sharma … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The dispute between the parties lies within a narrow compass. Since there was an anomaly with regard to the pay of the petitioner viz-a-viz her junior inasmuch as that though being senior she was getting less pay than her junior, the mistake was rectified by the respondent-Board vide office order dated 1.10.2005, Annexure A-4, by raising her pay from Rs. 8275/- per month to Rs. 8550/- per month with effect from 1.1.1997, but on notional basis with financial benefits accruing prospectively from the date of the issue of the order i.e. 1.10.2005. Soon thereafter the petitioner retired from service of the respondent-Board on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2005. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that once it was found that she was entitled for step up of her pay equal to that of her junior w.e.f. 1.1.1997, the natural corollary ought to have been payment of arrears of difference of pay right from day one from 1.1.1997 to the date of order i.e. 1.10.2005. However, since it was not done and instead the benefit was made to accrue prospectively only w.e.f. 1.10.2005, she submitted representation dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 9.11.2005, Annexure A-6, to the Secretary of the respondent-Board but without any result, she was constrained to move the Court. 3. The claim is contested by the respondent-Board mainly on the ground of delay and latches with regard to setting up of the same. However, the very foundation of such defence appears to have been laid on a false ground as is apparent from communication dated 29.12.1997, Annexure A-1 addressed by the Secretary of the respondent-Board to its Chief Accounts Officer, a bare perusal whereof would go to show that the petitioner is agitating the matter as far back as the year 1997. 4. It goes without saying that owing to the anomaly in question the petitioner has suffered financial loss. It being so, she was entitled for the actual benefit under office order dated 1.10.2005, Annexure A-4 and not mere step up of pay on notional basis with financial benefits prospectively from the date of order i.e. 1.10.2005. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent to pay the consequential financial benefits arising out of office order dated 1.10.2005 to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1997 instead of 1.10.2005 within two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment by the petitioner failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be payable from the due date(s) till the date of payment. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. February 21, 2011. (cr)