V.K. Sharma,

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 9.11.2005, Annexure A-6, to the Secretary of th