JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant before this Court is the Association of Food and Civil Supply Pensioners, which is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.10.2021, passed in writ petition Nos. 68856 of 2015 and 57952 of 2014. 2. The appellant-association by filing the writ petition had primarily challenged the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply, State of U.P., Lucknow dated 12.2.2015, whereby representation made by the appellant-association was rejected. A further prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement the sixth pay commission report from 1.12.2008 notionally from 1.1.2006. The members of the appellant-association are those employees of the department of food and civil supply, who had retired between 2008 to 2011. 3. Learned Single Judge after examining the claim of the appellant has returned a finding that the recommendation of the sixth pay commission report was uniformly implemented in all departments of the State, including department of food and civil supply, with effect from 1.1.2006 in terms of the Government Order dated 8.12.2008. The finding returned in that regard is not shown to be illegal or perverse. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the rectification of anomalies in the pay-scale vide tenth report of pay committee got implemented with effect from 30.6.2011 and upgraded pay was granted from the date of notification dated 30.6.2011. 4. Learned Single Judge has opined that the grant of benefit of up-gradation of pay consequent upon rectification of anomalies in the pay-scale has nothing to do with the implementation of the sixth pay commission report. With this finding, writ petition filed by the appellant-association has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the benefit of rectification of anomalies ought to have been extended from the date when sixth pay commission report itself was implemented i.e. 1.1.2006 and restricting its benefits with effect from 30.6.2011 is wholly arbitrary. 6. The appeal is opposed by learned State counsel. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 8. The appellant has essentially prayed that the benefit of sixth pay commission report be extended in the department of food and civil supply with effect from 1.1.2006. This is the primary grievance raised in the writ petition. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 8. The appellant has essentially prayed that the benefit of sixth pay commission report be extended in the department of food and civil supply with effect from 1.1.2006. This is the primary grievance raised in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge upon evaluation of respective pleas put forth by the parties has returned a categorical finding that the sixth pay commission report has been implemented in the department of food and civil supply with effect from 1.1.2006 vide Government Order dated 8.12.2008. Though the judgment of learned Single Judge has been challenged but the appellant has not been able to show that in the department of food and civil supply the benefit of sixth pay commission report was not implemented at par with other departments with effect from 1.1.2006. The grievance of the appellant in that regard is, therefore, rejected. 9. The claim raised by the members of the appellant-association apparently was in the nature of a potential claim as the employees of the department were claiming parity with employees of other departments on the basis of work performed by them. The recommendations made by the pay committee report (tenth report) was based upon the nature of work performed by the appellant-association and upon consideration of the plea of equivalence of status viz-a-viz posts of other departments and got implemented vide notification dated 30.6.2011. Such potential claim since was recognized, for the first time, on 30.6.2011, the recommendations got enforced in the department from that day. 10. In the order of the State Government a categorical finding has been returned that the grant of upgraded pay-scale was on the basis of consideration by the pay committee with regard to anomalies in the pay-scale, with reference to the work performance and status of the employees viz-a-viz posts of other departments of the State. Since claims which were potential in nature got recognized vide notification dated 30.6.2011, for the first time, the grant of benefit of upgraded pay only from 30.6.2011 cannot said to be illegal or arbitrary. 11. Potential claims since are not based on any existing rights, such claims would require determination first. It is only after determination of such potential claim in appropriate proceedings that the benefits found due can be extended. Ordinarily grant of such benefits would be prospective. 12. 11. Potential claims since are not based on any existing rights, such claims would require determination first. It is only after determination of such potential claim in appropriate proceedings that the benefits found due can be extended. Ordinarily grant of such benefits would be prospective. 12. It is not the case of the appellant that their claim for upgraded scale stood recognized from before nor is it their case that they were similarly circumscribed as the employees of the Central Government. We, therefore, find no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere in the writ petition. 13. The special appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.