HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.10932 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.09.2011 **** Jasvir Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. RK Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Maninder, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 09.03.2009/23.04.2009 (Annexure P13) whereby the legal notice served on her behalf has been disposed of by passing a speaking order. She also seeks a direction for her notional pay fixation with effect from the date when candidate lower in merit, namely, Gurmit Kaur has been given appointment as Vocational Mistress. (2). In order to appreciate the controversy, suffice it to reproduce para 5 of the impugned order dated (Annexure P13) which reads as follows:- “The selection list was published in the newspapers on 28.11.1994. The government service however does not CWP No.10932 of 2009.doc - 2 – start from the date of publication of the selection list but from the date of joining duty after appointment. Therefore she cannot be given appointment from 28.11.1994 but the candidate Shrimati Gurmit Kaur who was lower in merit than the petitioner was appointed as Voc. Mistress (Secretariat Practice) vide this office order No.5/209-94 Voc.(3) dated 16.02.1995. Therefore she is given the benefit of seniority from the date Shrimati Gurmit Kaur, who was lower in merit than the petitioner was appointed. Her seniority has already been correctly fixed in the seniority list. This fact has been confirmed by the petitioner in the legal notice.” (3). It may be seen that the petitioner has already been assigned seniority w.e.f the date when the candidate lower in merit (Gurmit Kaur) was appointed. That action of the respondents is perfectly correct. The resultant effect would be that the petitioner is also entitled to notional pay fixation w.e.f. the date of appointment of junior (Gurmit Kaur), otherwise it will lead to pay anomaly. (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is CWP No.10932 of 2009.doc - 3 – further clarified that no consequential arrears shall be paid to the petitioner. (6). Dasti . 15.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge