IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. 15654 of 2001. [O&M] Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2010. Smt. Jagdish Kaur Petitioner through Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner who had joined the Department as a Staff Nurse initially on ad-hoc basis on 2.2.1969, followed by her regular appointment on 4.7.1969 and was later on promoted as Nursing Sister on 28.06.1985, retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2001. She has two-fold grievance in this writ petition. Firstly, she seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant her benefit of ad-hoc service from 2.2.1969 to 4.7.1969 towards pensionary benefits. Secondly, she wants her pay to be stepped up at par with her junior, namely, Parkash Devi. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. Thereafter, some additional affidavits have also been filed by the parties. So far as the first issue raised by the petitioner, the same appears to be academic for the reason that her ad-hoc service is hardly for five months, i.e., less than six months and even if the said period is reckoned, it being less than one year, can have no effect on the fixation of her pay or pension. As regards the second relief, the respondents themselves have come up with the plea that after the scrutiny of the pay details of the petitioner and her junior Smt. Parkash Devi, the cause of less pay of the petitioner than her junior has been identified and that there existed an anomaly as junior of the petitioner was drawing higher pay. The aforesaid Government decision, however, is silent as to what further action was directed to be taken in the matter. In these circumstances, when the respondents have nowhere averred that the alleged wrong fixation of pay of Smt. Parkash Devi was ever rectified, the only recourse for them would be to re-fix the pay of the petitioner and bring it at par with her junior, namely, Parkash Devi from the date when such an anomaly occurred and grant her all the consequential benefits. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to act upon the decision dated 30.11.2000 [Annexure P-7] and step-up the pay of the petitioner to bring it at par with Smt. Parkash Devi and grant her all the consequential benefits, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. February 23, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE