JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged the award dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) and Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sikar, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,96,228/- to the claimants respondents. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that although the claimants had claimed that the salary of Panna Lal, (the deceased in this case) was Rs. 13,500/- per month, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be Rs. 17,944/- per month. Therefore, the very basis for assessing the loss of income is unsustainable. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, has contended that although the claimants had claimed the salary of the deceased as Rs. 13,500/- per month, but according to the latest salary certificate (Exhibit-9), the salary was shown as Rs. 17,944/- per month. The increased salary was shown on the ground that the Sixth Pay Commission Report had come into effect. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in taking the salary as shown in the salary certificate. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal was well aware of the fact that in the pleadings, the claimants did, indeed, claim the salary to be Rs. 13,500/- per month. However, Exhibit-9, the latest salary certificate issued by the Principal of the school, clearly revealed that under the latest pay scale Panna Lal was paid Rs. 16,440 as basic salary, Rs. 986 as dearness allowances and Rs. 518 as house rent allowances. Therefore, the total salary that he would have taken home would have been Rs. 17,944/- per month. It is, indeed, common knowledge that the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission was given retrospectively. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is certainly justified in taking the salary as Rs. 17,944/- per month instead of the salary as Rs. 13,500/- per month as claimed by the claimants-respondents. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned award. 6. Thus, this appeal is being devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******