JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to remove the anomaly in pay fixation of the petitioner and to pay all dues consequent upon proper fixation; and further prayer has been made to make necessary correction in the office order dated 16/17.08.2010 and pass further order after proper fixation. 2. Heard Ms. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned seniorcounsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on 27.10.1976 as Punch Verifier Operator (PVO) in Technical Grade ‘D’ under the Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The petitioner being aggrieved with the decision of respondents-BCCL as contained in letter dated 15/18th May, 1999, pertaining to seniority, knocked the door of this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 2096 of 1999, which was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2005, whereby this Court held that petitioner shall be deemed to be senior to Smt. Ashoka Gupta (respondent no. 5 in CWJC No. 2096 of 1999) and the order passed by writ Court was affirmed in L.P.A. No. 723 of 2005. It has further been submitted that an Industrial Dispute was also raised in Ref. Case No. 84 of 1997, which was answered vide Award dated 25th April, 2006 in favour of workmen after holding that promotion of Smt. Ashoka Gupta superseding Sri P.K. Sengupta and Sri R.P. Singh is not justified and accordingly direction was given to extend all consequential benefits. Aggrieved thereof, the management preferred writ application, being W.P. (L) No. 6430 of 2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not disputed that vide order dated 16/17.08.2010, the basic pay of the petitioner has been fixed notionally in T & S Gr. A w.e.f 13.08.1992 and further his promotion to T & S Gr. –A 1 w.e.f 14.02.2006 at par his juniors but fixation has not been made properly and his fixation is not at par with that of Ashoka Gupta and that of R.P. Sinha, who are juniors to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 16/17.08.2010, erroneously the basic pay of the petitioner has been fixed @ Rs. 3408/-whereas basic pay of his junior-Smt. Ashoka Gupta and Mr. R.P. Sinha was fixed @ Rs. 3540/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 16/17.08.2010, erroneously the basic pay of the petitioner has been fixed @ Rs. 3408/-whereas basic pay of his junior-Smt. Ashoka Gupta and Mr. R.P. Sinha was fixed @ Rs. 3540/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner represented before respondents-authorities but it did not evoke any response. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the anamoly, as alleged by the petitioner with Smt. Ashoka Gupta, is concerned that has already been removed by the respondents after dismissal of W.P. (L) No. 6430 of 2006 and basic pay of the petitioner has been fixed vide office order dated 16/17.08.2010. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that on careful examination of the matter, it has been noted that Sri R.P. Sinha was inadvertently granted S.L.U w.e.f 01.01.2007, due to which his basic pay was higher than that of Sri P.K. Sengupta; hence the excess amount paid on account of wrong fixation paid to Sri R.P. Sinha is recoverable. Therefore, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the matter. 5. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings available on record and in view of the decision rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 2096 of 1999 it is admitted fact that the petitioner is senior to Smt. Ashoka Gupta (respondent no. 5 in CWJC No. 2096 of 1999) and further as per the pleadings available in affidavit and counter affidavit, the petitioner is also senior to Mr. R.P. Sinha. In such view of the matter, the basic pay of the petitioner is fit to be revised/re-fixed vis-à-vis Smt Ashoka Gupta and Sri R.P. Sinha, who are admittedly juniors to the petitioners. 6. At this stage, it has been submitted at Bar that both the petitioner and said R.P. Sinha has now retired. In such view of the matter, it would be apt to dispose of the writ application with direction to respondents-BCCL to rectify/remove the anomaly in pay fixation of the petitioner after making necessary correction in the office order dated 16/17.08.2010 and since the petitioner has now retired, all consequential monetary benefit be given to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.