IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. L.P.A. No. 332 of 2011. Decided on: 12.10.2011. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. ….. Appellant. -Versus- Shubh Kanta Sharma. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the appellant. : Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. For the respondent. : None. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): C.M.P. (M) No. 1075 of 2011. Heard. In view of the contents of the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 332 of 2011. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 21.02.2011, rendered in CWP(T) No. 16007 of 2008. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that the respondent was working in the appellant-Board. There was an anomaly with regard to pay of the respondent viz-a-viz her junior. The mistake was rectified by the 2 appellant-Board on 01.10.2005. The pay of the respondent was raised from `8275/- per month to ` 8550/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.1997, but on notional basis. The financial benefits accrued to her prospectively from the date of the issue of order, i.e., 01.10.2005. She has retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2005. She also made a representation seeking financial benefits w.e.f. 01.01.1997. Thereafter, she filed the Original Application bearing O.A. No. 3048 of 2007 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was converted into CWP(T) No. 16007 of 2008. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 21.02.2011. 3. Mr. Tarlok Jamwal, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the Original Application filed by the respondent was barred by limitation. According to him, there was no illegality in the order of the appellant-Board, whereby the actual financial benefits have been paid to the respondent w.e.f. 01.10.2005 instead of 01.01.1997. 4. The Original Application bearing O.A. No. 3048 of 2007, which was converted into CWP(T) No. 16007 of 2008, was filed in 2007. There was no inordinate delay in filing the Original Application. Respondent has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2005. She had already made a representation and she was legitimately expecting that the decision will be taken on the representation at the earliest. However, when no decision was taken on the representation, she filed the Original Application before the learned Tribunal. There is no illegality in the 3 judgment of the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has come to the right conclusion that the respondent was entitled to actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and these could not be made payable prospectively w.e.f. 01.10.2005. Since the anomaly had arisen and the same was rectified by the respondent-Board itself, the financial benefits could not be restricted from future date. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. October 12, 2011. (bhupender)