S.U.Khan, J. - (1.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)PETITIONER claims to have been appointed as Assistant teacher in a primary school run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad. Initially petitioner was appointed in October, 1961 in the School which at that time was being run by a local body. After passing of Basic Education Act, 1972, management of such schools was taken over by Basic Shiksha Parishad. PETITIONER further claims in para 6 that throughout her carrier she remained untrained teacher and was paid consolidated pay which was revised from time to time. PETITIONER retired on 10.9.1989. On 28.4.1990, Deputy Inspector of Schools, Deoria gave a notice to her to handover the charge and submit no dues certificate so that there may not be any difficulty in providing pension and life insurance amount. Getting benefit of session petitioner who attained the age of 60 years (the age of superannuation) on 10.9.1989, actually retired on 30.6.1990. Thereafter petitioner claimed pension/ retiral benefit. Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria wrote a letter to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 27.8.2002 to the effect that petitioner was working as un-trained teacher and she was also not granted any exemption from training hence she was not entitled to pension. Similar letter was written on 6.9.2002 by District B.S.A., Deoria to Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur (it appears that petitioner had made some complaint to Superintendent of Police regarding non-payment of pension). Earlier also petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 1815 of 2004 which was disposed of on 15.2.2005 directing District B.S.A., Deoria to decide the representation. Representation was rejected on 29.3.2005/2.4.2005 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) hence this writ petition.
In the impugned order also it was mentioned that as petitioner was working on fixed salary and she did not obtain training hence she was not entitled to pension.

As Annexure-11 to the writ petition a Government order dated 8.3.1978 has been annexed. Through the said Government order it was provided that teachers of schools run by U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad would also be entitled to pension like Government employees.

(3.)ON 1.7.1989 Government issued a G.O. which has also been referred to in the impugned order dated 29.3.2005 / 2.4.2005 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). Through the said G.O. employees who had completed ten years of regular service were also granted benefit of pension on retirement even if they had not been confirmed.
No rule, regulations or Government orders has been shown by the respondents or referred to in the impugned order which denied the benefit of pension to untrained teachers. From the service book it is clear that petitioner was only 8th class pass. It is also admitted by the petitioner that she was untrained and until her retirement she did not obtain training. She was also not granted exemption from training. However, the fact is that she was permitted to continue as teacher for about 30 years out of which 18 years were after were after 1972 when Basic Shiksha Parishad controlled and managed the Institution in question. Whether petitioner possessed necessary qualifications or not is not much relevant. For the purposes of pension what is relevant is actual service. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority of this Court in Hansraj Pandey v. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (3) UPLBEC 2073. It is stated by the respondent that petitioner was working on fixed salary and not on pay scale. This fact is also admitted by the petitioner.