IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 14900 of 2008 Decided on: May 20, 2011 JIya Lal Verma ..Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate Generals Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner joined service as untrained teacher on 8.6.1967. He underwent JBT training in the year 1972 and from the date of completion of training, he was treated as trained JBT. He retired from service on 31.12.2006. His pension papers were sent to Accountant General, respondent No.5 herein, for issuance of pension payment order. Accountant General has made a back reference to Block Primary Education Officer, vide Annexure A-1, that petitioner’s pay has not been fixed, correctly, inasmuch as he has been given the benefit of proficiency step-up after 8 years and 18 years, considering him to be trained JBT from Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 25.6.1967, though on that date he was not a trained JBT and that benefit of such proficiency step-up was to be given from the date, when he acquired the qualification of trained JBT and that date, as per aforesaid back reference, is 19.8.1972. 2. Respondent No.3 has placed reliance upon some instructions of Himachal Pradesh Government (Finance Department, issued on 6.4.1990, in support of this objection. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid back reference of respondent No.3. He has not placed on record the letter, dated 6.4.1990, of Finance Department of Himachal Pradesh Government. However, in reply, respondents have stated that the question has already been answered by the Tribunal, based upon the aforesaid instructions, in another case of similar nature, in which it has been held that benefit of proficiency step-up, on completion of 8 and 18 years service, is available only to trained JBTs and the period of service of such JBTs, prior to acquisition of JBT qualification is not to be counted. 4. More relief has been sought by the petitioner and it is contained in para 7(f),which reads as follows: “(f) The respondents 1 to 4 may be directed to refix the salary of the applicant after allowing him special increment after completion of his 32 years service and also special increment on his promotion as Head Teacher.” É3É 5. Aforesaid relief is based on the pleadings in para 6(xvii),which read as follow: “(xvii) That so much so a special increment for which the applicant is entitled after completion of 32 year service has not been allowed to the applicant so far and further no special increment was given to the applicant on his promotion as Head Teacher.” 6. It is clear from a bare reading of the relief clause as also the relevant para, containing the pleading, that the pleading is too vague to entitle the petitioner to any relief. In view of the above stated position, petition is dismissed. May 20, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.