Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.) The prayer in this writ petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.96 and pay the arrears with 12% interest per annum. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Nurse Assistant on 4.7.1957 and after completing the service, she attained the age of superannuation while working as Female Nursing Assistant in the 3rd respondent Hospital on 29.02.96. The pension proposals were forwarded to the 3rd respondent and the retirement benefits and pension were sanctioned and the petitioner is receiving the pre-revised pension from the office of the Sub Treasury, Ariyalur. The petitioner seeks to revise the pension based on the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations which came into force from 1.1.96 and prayed for revision of pension with effect from 1.3.96. The said decision was taken to implement the Sixth Pay Commission through the Government Order with effect from 1.1.96. The petitioner retired on 29.02.96 and therefore, she is requesting for the revision of pension from 1.3.96. 3. According to the petitioner, she made representation and till date no orders has been passed regarding the revision of pension as per the Sixth Pay Commission. The petitioner is seeking revision by representations from 2003 onwards and the 1st respondent through letter dated 29.10.2003, addressed to the 2nd respondent, has stated to furnish the required particulars of the petitioner service details. Accordingly, the same was furnished by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent on 03.11.2003 and thereafter the 1st respondent sent a reply to the 3rd respondent by stating that after the receipt of the Service Register from the 2nd respondent, the proposals will be sent. Again, the 1st respondent sent a letter on 20.12.2003 to the 3rd respondent and requested to revise the pension of the petitioner. On 20.02.2004, the 1st respondent sent a letter to the 2nd respondent and directed him to send the Service Register on or before 20.03.2004 and on 21.03.2004 the 1st respondent requested the 2nd respondent to get the Pension Payment Order and submit the same to the 1st respondent. On 20.02.2004, the 1st respondent sent a letter to the 2nd respondent and directed him to send the Service Register on or before 20.03.2004 and on 21.03.2004 the 1st respondent requested the 2nd respondent to get the Pension Payment Order and submit the same to the 1st respondent. The same was furnished by the 2nd respondent and consequently, the 1st respondent sent a letter dated 20.12.2004 to the 3rd respondent and requested to revise the pension based on the Pension Payment Order. A copy of the Pension Payment Order bearing No.A800712/Medical is also produced before this Court. The 1st respondent again sent a reminder to the 3rd respondent on 28.02.2005 for which a reply was sent by the 3rd respondent on 03.03.2005 and stated that duplicate Service Register may be reconstituted with the entries attested in respect of the petitioner and forward the same to the office of the 3rd respondent so that the pension can be revised. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of her retirement in the year 1996 and the Sixth Pay Commission benefits was given to all other employees of the Government from 1.1.96, the petitioner is not getting the revised pension due to the fault of the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's Service Register is with the office of the 1st and the 2nd respondents and it is the responsibility of the respondents 1 and 2 to search for the Service Register and if it is not available, the revision of pension may be ordered based on the Pension Payment Order already issued wherein all the service details of the petitioner are verified and sanctioned earlier. The learned Government Advocate submits that if a direction is given either to reconstitute a duplicate Service Register or to sanction the revised pension based on the Pension Payment Order, the respondents are willing to sanction and pay the same to the petitioner. 5. Taking note of the said submissions and the eligibility of the petitioner to get the revision of pension based on the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations from 1.3.96, the respondents are directed to reconstitute the Service Register or to sanction the revised pension based on the Pension Payment Order submitted by the petitioner. 5. Taking note of the said submissions and the eligibility of the petitioner to get the revision of pension based on the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations from 1.3.96, the respondents are directed to reconstitute the Service Register or to sanction the revised pension based on the Pension Payment Order submitted by the petitioner. The said exercise shall be made by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and arrears of revised pension shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.