Judgment Sanjeev Kumar, J.-The petitioner in this petition has sought a Writ of Certiorari for quashing Communication No. DSEJ/Legal/23412 dated 14.08.2017 issued by respondent No.2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for counting her service w.e.f 07.02.2004 for regularization as General Line Teacher has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to treat her services, to be governed by the old CSR Rules for the purpose of pension and not under the New Pension Scheme which has been introduced w.e.f 01.01.2010. A direction has also been sought to the respondents to grant the petitioner arrears of pay instead of benefit of notional service granted to him. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the first prayer is concerned, the same has already been granted by the respondents and the services of the petitioner as ReT have been reckoned w.e.f 07.02.2004 and as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009. He, however, submits that the grievance of the petitioner, that now remains to be redressed, is two fold: (i) that he is entitled to arrears of salary as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009 till he was actually appointed and; (ii) that taking his appointment as General Line Teacher on 07.02.2009, he would be governed by old Pension Rules and not by the New Pension Scheme which has been introduced w.e.f 01.01.2010. 3. The case has a chequered history and has its genesis in the Advertisement Notice issued by respondent No.3 somewhere in the year 2003 for filling up of two posts of ReT in the New Primary School, Nihalpur Simbal of Tehsil R.S.Pura. The petitioner along with other candidates responded to the said Notification, but the petitioner, though higher up in the merit was not considered on the ground that she was not the resident of revenue village Nihalpur, Simbal and, accordingly, two candidates namely Surinder Kour and Prito Devi were selected and appointed as ReT. 4. The petitioner, who was better in merit than the aforesaid selected candidates, submitted a representation to the respondents. The said representation was accorded consideration and the grievance of the petitioner was found genuine. Consequently, the orders of engagement of aforesaid candidates Surinder Kour and Prito Devi as ReT in the aforesaid School were cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 06.07.2004. The said representation was accorded consideration and the grievance of the petitioner was found genuine. Consequently, the orders of engagement of aforesaid candidates Surinder Kour and Prito Devi as ReT in the aforesaid School were cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 06.07.2004. The said cancellation order became the subject matter of challenge in SWP No. 1094/2004 which was allowed by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.10.2005 and the order of cancellation of appointments of aforesaid candidates was quashed. The petitioner assailed the order of learned Single Judge in LPA (SW) No.204/2005 before the Division Bench of this Court. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2007 and the order of learned Single Judge was set aside. 5. In compliance to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the appointment of Surinder Kour and Prito Devi came to be cancelled by the ZEO, Miran Sahib, R.S.Pura vide his order dated 05.09.2007 and consequently, the petitioner herein along with one Daljeet Kour came to be appointed in their place in terms of another order issued by the ZEO, Miran Sahib, R.S.Pura on 07.09.2007. The petitioner joined her services as ReT in the concerned School on 07.09.2007 itself. The candidates namely Surinder Kour and Prito Devi, who felt aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 14.03.2013. It is pertinent to mention here that in view of the interim directions granted by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP on 21.09.2007 which came to be vacated only with the dismissal of the SLP on 14.03.2013, the order of appointment of the petitioner could not be given effect to. It was only after the dismissal of SLP, the Director, School Education vide his order dated 17.06.2013 appointed the petitioner herein along with one Daljit Kour as ReTs in Primary School, Nihalpur, Simbal and the appellant was given effect notionally w.e.f. 07.09.2007. 6. The ReTs Surinder Kour and Prito Devi, who faced cancellation of their appointments after the dismissal of SLP once again filed writ petition i.e SWP No. 1994/2013 in which this Court vide order dated 19.09.2013 directed maintenance of status quo and provided that both the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition be allowed to perform their duties as General Line Teachers. It may be noted that by the time the SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court putting quitus on the controversy, the candidates namely Surinder Kour and Prito Devi had already been regularized as General Line Teachers after completion of five years as ReT. Aggrieved, the petitioners herein filed an application before the Supreme Court and in terms of order dated 4th October, 2013 passed by the Supreme Court, the interim order directing maintenance of status quo granted by the learned Single Bench in SWP No.1994/2013 was stayed. Thereafter, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed giving liberty to file similar application before the Division Bench of this Court which had disposed of LPA No. 204/2005 on 10.08.2007. 7. This is how the matter once again landed before the Division Bench by way of an application which was filed by the petitioner herein. The said application was, however, disposed of by the Division Bench on 10.09.2014 taking note of the order of ZEO, Miran Sahib dated 27.08.2014 whereby the engagement of the petitioner had given effect from 6th July 2004, though notionally. The Court also provided that in case the candidates namely Surinder Kour and Prito Dvi, who were respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the aforesaid application have been regularized as General Line Teachers, it is up to the respondents to allow them to continue. 8. In view of the disposal of the aforesaid application, the litigation inter se the parties has come to an end. However, the grievance of the petitioner as projected in this petition, in short, is that, though she has been appointed as ReT w.e.f 07.02.2004 notionally and as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009, yet the petitioner has not been held entitled to arrears of salary w.e.f 07.02.2009 till she was actually appointed and physically joined on the post i.e 18th July 2014. She also claims that since she has been appointed as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009 and, therefore, the new pension scheme which has come into force w.e.f 01.10.2010 is not applicable to her and, thus, the respondents are liable to be directed to treat her services being governed by the old CSR Pension Rules. 9. As a matter of fact, the petitioner before filing this writ petition had approached the Director School Education, Jammu with a representation projecting his grievance which she has projected before this Court. 9. As a matter of fact, the petitioner before filing this writ petition had approached the Director School Education, Jammu with a representation projecting his grievance which she has projected before this Court. The same, however, was rejected by the Director School Education, Jammu vide the impugned communication dated 14th August 2017. The petitioner is aggrieved of rejection of her claim for release of arrears of salary as also subjecting her to new pension scheme and has, therefore, filed instant writ petition. 10. The respondents have filed their objections and have justified the impugned order of rejection passed by the Director School Education, Jammu taking a plea that the order of the Division Bench passed in APLPA No. 28/2014 which was the last litigation between the parties has been implemented and the petitioner has been given engagement as ReT w.e.f 6th July 2004 (notionally). It is submitted that since the petitioner has not actually worked against the post and, therefore, she is not entitled to arrears of salary. There is, however, no plausible explanation given as to why the services of the petitioner, who was appointed as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009 be not governed by the old pension scheme except that it is pleaded that since the petitioner was not physically in service prior to 01.01.2010 and, therefore, her services have been rightly decided to be governed by the new pension scheme which came into force w.e.f 01.01.2010. 11. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ravinder Gupta learned AAG representing the respondents, has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors vs. Nisha Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 7009/2019, decided on 04.09.2019). 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the petitioner has precisely raised following two issues for consideration. (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary w.e.f 07.02.2009, the date from which her services as General Line Teacher have been regularized ? ; and (ii) Whether the services of the petitioner, who has been regularized as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009 are governed by the old pension scheme or by the new pension scheme in force in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir w.e.f 01.01.2010. 13. So far as the first issue is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as ReT w.e.f 07.02.2004. 13. So far as the first issue is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as ReT w.e.f 07.02.2004. She was even given the benefit of regularization as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009 on completion of five years service. Both these benefits were granted by the respondents to the petitioner notionally, for the reason that because of the litigation inter see the parties, the petitioner had not worked physically against the post. It is not the case of the petitioner that, during the period she was not offered the engagement as ReT/General Line Teacher, she was not gainfully employed anywhere. 14. In the similar set of circumstances, the Supreme Court has denied the arrears of salary for the period of notional appointment in case of Nisha Sharma (supra). I see no point or reason not to take the similar view as was taken by the Supreme Court in almost similar set of circumstances. Be that as it is, since the petitioner has not actually worked against the post and remained out of action, not because of any act or omission of the respondents, but due to inter se litigation between the petitioner and the candidates namely Surinder Kour and Prito Devi and, therefore, I see no justification to grant any arrear of salary to the petitioner. 15. So far as the second issue, taken note of hereinabove, is concerned, I find sufficient substance in the submission of Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, having been given the appointment as ReT w.e.f 07.02.2009, cannot be governed by the new pension scheme which admittedly came into force w.e.f 01.01.2010. 16. From a perusal of aforesaid scheme, it is abundantly clear that there is no stipulation like that a candidate must be in actual and physical service at the time when the new pension scheme is promulgated. Once, it is not disputed that the new pension scheme came into force w.e.f 01.01.2010, it is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner having been appointed on 07.02.2009 would be governed by the new pension scheme as her appointment w.e.f 07.02.2009 was only notional and she actually came to be appointed in the year 2014. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner having been appointed on 07.02.2009 would be governed by the new pension scheme as her appointment w.e.f 07.02.2009 was only notional and she actually came to be appointed in the year 2014. The appointment of the petitioner as General Line Teacher w.e.f 07.02.2009 (notionally) would inure to all the benefits to the petitioner except the monetary benefits. The pension scheme, which was in vogue before 01.01.2010 would, therefore, apply to the petitioner. This is evident from the plain language of SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009 whereby apart from others, Article 167 of CSR has been amended to provide the following: “(i) In Article 167 dealing with Pension Rules under the caption ‘Section I-Extent of Application’ after exception 5, the following shall be added as exception (6): “(6) The State Government Employees appointed on or after 01.10.2010 shall be governed by “New Pension Scheme” as per Article 249-M(B) added after 249-M(A) and accordingly, the existing Pension Rules shall not be applicable to Government Employees appointed or brought on regular established on or after 01.01.2010.” (ii)………………………….. (iii)………………………. (iv)……………………… 17. The expression used in amended provision is “appointed on or after 01.01.2010”. That would mean substantive appointment irrespective of whether it is notional or otherwise. The services of petitioner as General Line Teacher have been regularized and she has been substantively appointed on 07.02.2009 i.e prior to 01.01.2010. That being the position, SRO 400 of 2009 would have no application. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is partly allowed to the extent that the petitioner having been appointed as General Line Teacher on 07.02.2009, though notionally shall be governed by the pension scheme/Rules which was in vogue prior to promulgation of new pension scheme i.e w.e.f 01.01.2010.