IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 2948/2008 Decided on:6.5.2009 Yamuna Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No. For the petitioner : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed as untrained Teacher on 14.9.1960. She had undergone training of Nursery and Pre-School Teacher. She was issued a certificate on 9.7.1962. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as untrained Junior Basic Teacher and was always under the impression that despite her undergoing training of Nursery and Pre- School Teacher, she will be appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher. She alongwith other similarly situate persons made several representations to the respondents to treat them at par with the Junior Basic Trained Teachers for the purpose of pay and other benefits. She 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 filed original application for the redressal of her grievances before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal directed the application to be treated as a representation to the competent authority. The same was rejected by the Secretary (Education) on 23.2.1995. Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client should be treated for all intents and purposes to be appointed against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher from 14.9.1960. He then contended that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the Secretary (Education) on 23.2.1995 is arbitrary. He lastly contended that the State Government has though redressed the grievance of the petitioner and similarly situate persons vide office order dated 13.1.1997 whereby 60 posts of untrained teachers in Mandi Districts were converted to Junior Basic Trained Teachers, however, it was done from the date of issuance of the notification. In other words, his submission is that the posts of Nursery Teachers were to be converted to the posts of Junior Basic Trained Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 from very inception. The petitioner is also seeking parity of pay scale with the Junior Basic Trained Teachers from 1975. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the post of Junior Basic Trained Teachers and Nursery Trained Teachers constitute different cadre. According to him, the State had taken a decision on 13.1.1997 to convert the posts of Nursery Trained Teachers to Junior Basic Trained Teachers, but it has to take effect from the date of issuance of notification. In other words, his submission is that order dated 13.1.1997 cannot be given retrospective effect. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was appointed as Nursery Teacher. She had undergone training of Nursery and Pre-School Teacher. The cadres of Nursery Trained Teachers and Junior Basic Trained Teachers were separate as per the pleadings of the parties. The Teachers who had undergone Junior Basic Trained Teacher’s course were bound to be appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher. The Teachers who had undergone training of Nursery and Pre-School Teacher were to be appointed as Nursery Teachers. They were always placed in different pay scales vis-à-vis the teachers appointed against the posts of Junior Basic Trained Teachers. The qualifications and responsibilities to be discharged by the Nursery Teachers and Junior Basic Trained Teachers were different. It was only on 13.1.1997 that the State Government had taken a decision to convert the posts of Nursery Teachers to Junior Basic Trained Teachers. Consequently, the posts of Nursery Teachers were abolished. The cadre of Nursery Teachers was declared as ‘dying cadre’. This decision cannot be applied retrospectively to treat the Nursery Teachers as Junior Basic Trained Teachers from very inception i.e. from the year 1960. It appears that the decision has been taken by the State to convert the posts of Nursery Teachers to Junior Basic Trained Teachers vide notification 13.1.1997 taking into consideration the meager strength of the Nursery Teachers. It was only for this reason that only 60 posts were converted to the post of Junior Basic Trained Teachers and thereafter the cadre was declared ‘dying cadre’. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not convince the Court that the notification dated 13.1.1997 was to be given retrospective effect. In fact, from the language employed in the notification it is evident that the 4 posts of Nursery Teachers were converted to the posts of Junior Basic Trained Teachers from the date of issuance of the notification. There is no arbitrariness in the notification dated 13.1.1997. In fact, after the issuance of notification dated 13.1.1997, the petitioner and similarly situate persons stood appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teachers. The petitioner could not seek the pay scale of the Junior Basic Trained Teachers with effect from 16.7.1975. The cadre of the Nursery Teachers was different vis-à-vis Junior Basic Trained Teachers. The petitioner has not assailed the cut-off date prescribed on the basis of notification dated 13.1.1997. The petitioner was required to amend his petition to assail the notification specifically since the Nursery Teachers have been converted as Junior Basic Trained Teachers from the date of issuance of the notification. This petition is also liable to be dismissed on this ground as well. The petitioner had undertaken the training of Nursery and Pre- School Teacher voluntarily, she opted for the same and consequently she could only be appointed as Nursery Teacher. In case she was to be considered against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher, it was incumbent upon her to undergo the course of Junior Basic Trained Teacher. The training of Junior Basic Trained Teachers and Nursery Teachers stand on different footing. The petitioner cannot seek pay scale of the Junior Basic Trained Teachers from the year 1975. She has not laid any foundation in the pleadings for seeking this pay scale. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 6.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*