JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Compliance of the order passed by this Court on 8.7.2009 has not been made till date. 3. The Additional Advocate General has made a statement that by tomorrow i.e. 14.7.2009 a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, imposed as cost for the adjournment granted, shall be paid by bank draft. 4. Let there be no cause of complaint that the order has not been complied with. Now on merits. 5. Petitioner before this Court claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) in the year 1999 under the Triple Language Scheme with the approval of the Assistant Director of Education Basic 1st Region, Meerut dated 9.3.1999. Copy of the appointment letter has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner was paid her salary under the Triple Language Scheme for the sessions 1999-2000, 2005-2006 and 2006­2007 i.e. Rs. 42,680/- through Cheque No. 80927 dated 31.3.2002, Rs. 54,792/- through Cheque No. 180992 dated 20.3.2006 and Rs. 56,184/- through Cheque No. 8206 dated 1.12.2006. 6. However, the petitioner was not paid her salary for the sessions 2000-2001 to 2004-2005, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 6880 of 2008 for a direction upon the State respondents to ensure payment of wages under the Triple Language Scheme. The writ petition was finally decided under the judgment and order dated 9.9.2008 and the petitioner was permitted to make a representation before the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. in respect of her grievance. The representation made by the petitioner was decided under the order impugned dated 9th January, 2009. The entitlement of the salary for the period mentioned above i.e. 2000­2001 to 2004-2005, 2007-2008 was not disputed. What was stated is that because of necessary allocation of funds being not made in the budget, the payment of the salary for the period cannot be made. The entitlement of the salary for the period mentioned above i.e. 2000­2001 to 2004-2005, 2007-2008 was not disputed. What was stated is that because of necessary allocation of funds being not made in the budget, the payment of the salary for the period cannot be made. The operative portion of the order is being quoted herein below : Þmi;qZDr foospuk ls Li"V gS fd Jherh vuhrk R;kxh f=Hkk"kk fkf{kdk laLÑr vknkZ cky fk{kk lnu twfu;j gkbZLdwy] esajB esa dk;Zjr gSA bUgsa o"kZ 1999&2000 ls 2003&04 rd o 2006&07 rFkk 2007&08 ds foxr o"kksZ dk f=Hkk"kk vuqnku dk Hkqxrku vk;&O;d esa ctV O;oLFkk u gksus ds dkj.k ugha fd;k x;kA vk;&O; ctV O;oLFkk u gksus ds dkj.k orZeku esa Hkh f=Hkk"kkuqnku dk Hkqxrku laHko ugha Gsaþ 7. The petitioner, therefore, filed this second writ petition alleging therein that non-release of the monetary benefits under the Triple Language Scheme is totally uncalled for, inasmuch as the State Government cannot be permitted to take Begar from the petitioner. 8. The writ Court while entertaining the present writ petition on 21st April, 2009 passed an order requiring the State Government to explain as to why budgetary allocation has not been made for ensuring payment of salary to the petitioner as well as other similarly situate incumbents. For ready reference the order dated 21st April, 2009 reads as follows : “Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Finance as respondent No. 5 in the array of respondents forthwith. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and newly added respondent No. 5. Six weeks time is accorded to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit. List thereafter on 6.7.2009. On the next date fixed personal affidavit of Principal Secretary, Finance, respondent No. 5, be filed as to why no budgetary provision has been made for ensuring payment of salary to the petitioner as well as other similarly situated incumbents.” 9. This Court may record that in the counter affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary (Finance), namely Manjit Singh on 6th July, 2009 it is stated that budgetary allocations have to be placed before the legislature and that the finance department on its own cannot make any budgetary provision. The head under which such allocations were to be made has also been disclosed. The head under which such allocations were to be made has also been disclosed. It was lastly stated in paragraph 7 that it is for the Basic Shiksha Vibhag to decide whether salary is payable according to the Rules/Government Order or not. In the said affidavit also the Secretary did not challenge the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period mentioned above. 10. On the same date i.e. 6th July, 2009 the officer, who had passed the order impugned, namely Mahendra Kumar Singh has filed an affidavit and in paragraph 10 it was specifically stated that the officer had passed the order dated 9.1.2009 indicating that the petitioner has not been paid salary due to non-sanction of the budget by the State Government under Triple Language Scheme in respect of Financial Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 and 2007-2008. In paragraphs 10 and 12 of the affidavit it was stated that the petitioner shall be paid salary after the allocation of budget by the State Government under the Triple Language Scheme. The relevant portion of paragraph 10 and 12 of the affidavit is being quoted below : “10. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 13 and 14 of the writ petition it is stated that pursuant to the order dated 9.9.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46880 of 2008, Smt. Anita Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others, the representation filed by the petitioner was considered by the respondent No. 3 and considering the claim of the petitioner as well as going through the records of the case concerned, the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 9.1.2009 indicating that the petitioner has not been paid salary due to non-sanction of budget by the State Government under Triple Language System in respect of financial years 1999-2000 to 2003-04, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 12. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner will be paid salary after the allocation of budget from the State Government in respect of respective years under Triple Language Scheme.” 11. 12. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner will be paid salary after the allocation of budget from the State Government in respect of respective years under Triple Language Scheme.” 11. This Court, therefore, proceeded to pass an order on 6th July, 2009 stating therein that since the liability for payment is not disputed, the payment is withheld for last eight years and the explanation furnished by way of affidavit was unsatisfactory, therefore, 8th July, 2009 was fixed as the date for appropriate action being taken. 12. It is on 8th July, 2009 that the Secretary became wiser and for the first time he came up with a plea that the counter affidavit, as was dictated by the Standing Counsel in light of the narrative prepared, has not been correctly typed by the stenographer in the office of the Standing Counsel, as he could not take-down the dictation of the Standing Counsel correctly. There is a mistake in paragraph 12 of the earlier affidavit filed on 6th July, 2009 and the word ‘not’ has been left out. 13. In none of the paragraphs of the earlier affidavits, filed by the Secretary or the Officer, they had disputed the claim of the petitioner qua payment of the wages under the Triple Language Scheme. On 8th July, 2009 appearance was put in by the Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State and for the first time a dispute was raised with regard to liability of payment of salary to the writ petitioner by the State Government and time was prayed for filing a better counter affidavit. 14. This Court deprecated the practice so adopted on behalf of the State authorities and found that in the facts of the case imposition of cost of Rs. 10,000/- would serve the interest of justice for granting the adjournment and accordingly an order was passed on 8th July, 2009. 15. 14. This Court deprecated the practice so adopted on behalf of the State authorities and found that in the facts of the case imposition of cost of Rs. 10,000/- would serve the interest of justice for granting the adjournment and accordingly an order was passed on 8th July, 2009. 15. Today a counter affidavit has been filed by the Joint Secretary Basic Education, Government of U.P. and for the first time Additional Advocate General has contended that in terms of the Government Order applicable in respect of grant of recognition to unaided junior high school, liability of payment of salary to the teachers of Triple Language Scheme is upon the institution itself and the State is not liable to make the payment. 16. The stand so taken by the Secretary concerned is wholly perverse and an attempt to mislead the Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as teacher under Triple Language Scheme with the approval of the Joint Director of Education in an unaided institution, at the relevant time which was only recognized up to junior high school. It is also not in dispute that she has been paid salary for three academic sessions by the State Government and when she set up a claim for payment in respect of the remaining academic sessions qua which the money was not released by the State Government, the Secretary has turnaround to sate that there is no such liability of the State Government. 17. If there is no liability of payment of salary to the petitioner upon the State Government, then two issues arise (a) where was the occasion for the Joint Director of Education to pass the order of approval of appointment of the petitioner under the Triple Language Scheme in the institution in the year 1999, inasmuch as the institution was admittedly, (b) where was the occasion for payment of salary for the three academic sessions, as noticed above, being made to the petitioner under the Triple Language Scheme through public exchequer. 18. There is no answer to these questions on behalf of the State respondents. 19. The Court could have directed payment of salary for the subsequent periods to the petitioner qua her actually working under the Triple Language Scheme. However, this Court feels that the contention raised on behalf of the Additional Advocate General on merit be also examined. 20. 18. There is no answer to these questions on behalf of the State respondents. 19. The Court could have directed payment of salary for the subsequent periods to the petitioner qua her actually working under the Triple Language Scheme. However, this Court feels that the contention raised on behalf of the Additional Advocate General on merit be also examined. 20. It is contended that the Government Order dated 11th May, 1992 provides that the teachers appointed in a recognized junior high schools which have not been taken on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government, the liability of payment of salary will be upon the management only and therefore Triple Language Teachers appointed in such unaided recognized institution are also to be paid the salary by the management from its own resources. 21. The contention so raised on behalf of the Additional Advocate General proceeds on complete non-consideration of the Government Order dated 10th March, 1964, which provides for appointment of teachers under Triple Language Scheme and reads as follows : “With reference to your letter No. Secondary/2160/XXXVII-77(60)/63-64, dated January 1, 1964, I am directed to say that in connection with the implementation of the Three Language Formula in all the recognised Non-Government Junior High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools of the State, the Governor has been pleased to approve of your proposal for appointment with effect from February 1, 1964 or the date of entertainment in the current financial year 1963­64, of additional teachers for teaching of the third language. The scales of pay of the additional language teachers appointed under the Scheme in different types of institutions shall be as laid down below : (a) Non-Government Higher Rs. 75-5-110-7-168-8-200 Secondary Schools. (For trained under Graduates) (b) Non-Government Junior Rs. 60-3-80-5-120 High Schools. (For J.T.C.) (c) Junior High Schools Rs. 55-2-75-EB-3-90 maintained by Local Bodies. (For Specialists) (d) Government Higher Rs. 75-5-120-EB-8-200 Secondary Schools (For trained teacher) (e) Government Model Schools Rs. 60-4-80-5-120 (Boy) (For J.T.C.) (f) Government Girls Junior Rs. 60-4-80-5-120 High Schools. (For J.T.C.) In addition to the salaries in the scales of pay mentioned above in Government and Non-Government institutions the teachers will also get the dearness allowance and Ad-hoc pay etc. as may be admissible to them in accordance with the orders of the Government issued from time to time. 60-4-80-5-120 High Schools. (For J.T.C.) In addition to the salaries in the scales of pay mentioned above in Government and Non-Government institutions the teachers will also get the dearness allowance and Ad-hoc pay etc. as may be admissible to them in accordance with the orders of the Government issued from time to time. The qualifications of these teachers for the different types of institutions shall be prescribed by you. 2. The Governor has also been pleased to order that facilities for the teaching of the Third Language under this Scheme may be extended to all institutions where the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools is satisfied that there is a genuine demand from 5 or more student in a class for learning the Third Language. 3. The Governor has further been pleased to place at your disposal a sum of Rs. 3,73,000/- (Round) Rupees three Lakhs seventy three thousand) for payment of grant for wholly covering the additional expenditure on this account to the Non Govt. aided institutions during the current financial year (1963-64) out of the budgetted provision. 4. The charge on the above account will be debited to the head, “28-Education-Non-Plan-B-Secondary (b)­Direct Grants to Non-Government Secondary Schools, Boy (recurring) in the current years budget and met out of savings. 5. The Governor has also been pleased to authorise you to pay this grant in the next and future years subject to the necessary funds being voted by the Legislature. Necessary provision for the purpose in the budget of subsequent years will be included direct by you." 22. From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the State Government came out with the scheme for providing teachers under the Triple Language Scheme to all institutions, which were recognized irrespective of the fact whether the institution was receiving aid from the Government or not. The Government Order dated 10th March, 1964 holds the field even today and has not been diluted in any manner. The Government Order of 1992 is for a different purpose. It regulates the payment of wages to the teachers appointed in recognized institutions for teaching the subject qua which the recognition is granted. The Government Order dated 10th March, 1964 holds the field even today and has not been diluted in any manner. The Government Order of 1992 is for a different purpose. It regulates the payment of wages to the teachers appointed in recognized institutions for teaching the subject qua which the recognition is granted. Appointment of teachers under the Triple Language Scheme is for the purpose of imparting education to the children in the third language as per Triple Language Scheme in recognized schools irrespective of the fact as to whether the third language has been approved at the time of grant of recognition or thereafter or not and as to whether a post for the purpose has been created in the recognized institution or not. All such Triple Language Teachers are to be paid salary by the State and necessary provision for funds were also made separately. 23. It is in this background that appointment of the petitioner needed approval of the Joint Director of Education at the relevant time and it is for this reason the petitioner and such other Triple Language Teachers were in fact paid salary, for the academic session when the money was allocated by the State Government in its budget, through State Exchequer. From the scheme it shall be seen that creation of posts for the teachers of Triple Language Scheme, the institutions being on aid list of the State Government were not the guiding factors and they are irrelevant. The scheme has continued unamended since then. The third language teacher was to be permitted only on the asking of five students in writing irrespective of the fact that the third language teacher has been approved for the college and as to whether any aid in respect thereof was being paid. 24. This Court has no hesitation to record that the Director of Education while passing the order dated 9.1.2009 had rightly held that the petitioner could not be paid her salary for the academic sessions mentioned therein only because of budgetary allocation having not been made by the State Government and at no point of time any challenge has been made to the payment claimed by the petitioner from the State Exchequer. The order passed by the Director of Education holds the field good even today and therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the State Government to act contrary to the order passed by the Director of Education. They must honour the order and ensure payment of salary to the petitioner within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Secretary concerned. 25. In the facts of the case this Court further feels that a cost of Rs. 20,000/- be imposed upon the Secretary, who has taken a stand, which, on the face of it, is contrary to the scheme floated by the State Government. It is ordered accordingly. 26. The cost so imposed shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from today, failing which it shall be recovered from the Secretary concerned as arrears of land revenue and paid to the petitioner. For the purpose the Registrar General of this Court is directed to take all necessary steps. 27. Writ petition is allowed subject to the observation made. ————