JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders dated 1st December, 1995 and 12th December, 1995 issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 respectively and are brought on record as Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition. 3. The petitioners, who are Office Assistant Grade-II before this Court are aggrieved against the orders to the extent that the benefit has been conferred upon them only w.e.f. 1st December, 1995 the date when anomaly came to be rectified by the respondents in the pay-scale and the Board adopted the same vide order dated 12th December, 1995. 4. The facts of the case in narrow compass can be drawn like this that the petitioners who are working on the post of Office Assistant Grade-II earlier enjoyed higher pay-scale than that of the conductor for the simple reason that the Office Assistant Grade-II is a promotional post and the cadre of conductor is a feeding cadre and, therefore, the plea was taken before the authority from time to time that while pay revision took place w.e.f. 1st January, 1986, the pay-scale of the Office Assistant Grade-II was put at par with that of the conductor's pay-scale Rs. 950-1500 whereas after attaining 10 years in service the pay-scale of the Office Assistant Grade-II was fixed as 1025-1720 and that of the conductor was fixed 1175-1625 and further after 10 years conductor's pay-scale would be fixed as Rs.1210-1720. So, the pay-scale of the feeding cadre as well as the promotional cadre post has not only been put at par but also the promotional cadre post has been placed on a lower pay-scale after some period of service. This anomaly in pay-scale of the petitioner's cadre has come to be rectified by the State-respondents by issuing a Government order dated 1st December, 1995 making the pay-scale of the conductor as 1200-1800 after 20 years and that of the Office Assistant Grade-II as 1200-1800, at the maximum. This anomaly in pay-scale of the petitioner's cadre has come to be rectified by the State-respondents by issuing a Government order dated 1st December, 1995 making the pay-scale of the conductor as 1200-1800 after 20 years and that of the Office Assistant Grade-II as 1200-1800, at the maximum. This fact is not only quite reflected from the order impugned which has been adopted by the U.P. State Transport Corporation but also is the proof of an averment that has come to be made in paragraph 28 of the writ petition which has come to be replied in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that the recommendations of the Samta Samiti in respect of the pay-scale in different cadre were got revised and thus, averment made in paragraph 28 of the writ petition that no additional benefit was conferred upon the petitioners, stands admitted. 5. Even otherwise, the Court is of the opinion that once anomalies in fixation of the pay-scale have come to be rectified, concomitantly it should be made effective since the date the anomalies had occurred. Since the revision in pay-scale took place w.e.f. 1st January, 1986 and anomaly was there from very inception, the pay fixation should have been made applicable since 1986 as it is very clear that correction always dates back the time error had occurred in matters where error had resulted in serious adverse consequences. In service jurisprudence an injury if inflicted due to fallible action of employer is cured/ rectified, it can only be either by way of compensatory damages or restoring the position as an employee would have been at but for the error. I, therefore, find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for the rectification in the anomaly of pay-scale from the very inception. 6. On a pointed query being made to the learned Standing Counsel as to why the order dated 1st December, 1995 will not be effective from the date the revised pay-scale was made applicable as it was only rectification order, learned Standing Counsel submits that the same has been adopted by the Corporation and it is for the Corporation to look into the matter. However, he could not justify the action that when there was no additional benefit being conferred and it was a mere correction and yet not applied from back date. 7. However, he could not justify the action that when there was no additional benefit being conferred and it was a mere correction and yet not applied from back date. 7. In view of the above, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioners in the light of the fact that the order dated 1st December, 1995 by the State Government adopted by the Corporation under the order dated 12th December, 1995 did not confer any additional benefit upon the petitioner but it was only anomaly in the pay-scale that was rectified. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer for no fault on their part and, therefore, the petitioners case would be not tested on any other merit but only on the merit of their entitlement of pay-scale since 1986 which has been revised or rectified only in the year 1995. The respondents shall proceed to pass necessary direction by considering the grievance of the petitioners and arrears of the salary of the petitioners in the revised pay-scale as has come to be rectified will be calculated accordingly and necessary orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.