JUDGMENT Honble S.U. Khan, J.—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 his carrier she remained un-trained 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 & 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 un-trained 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 un-trained 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 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 reported 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. 7. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to pension. 8. However, the question of delay is relevant. For 12 years petitioner did nothing regarding payment of her pension. Extremely vague allegations regarding explanation of delay have been made in para 9 and 10 of the writ petition. The assertion that petitioner submitted relevant papers for the purposes of pension but no action was taken and petitioner had on every occasions visited the office of District B.S.A. for providing pension is too vague to be believed. For the first time in June 2002 petitioner approached a very strange authority namely Deputy Superintendent of Police (para-11 of the writ petition) then she was told that she was not entitled to pension. Thereafter petitioner filed writ petition in 2004 which was disposed of with the direction to decide representation on 15.2.2005. For the first time in June 2002 petitioner approached a very strange authority namely Deputy Superintendent of Police (para-11 of the writ petition) then she was told that she was not entitled to pension. Thereafter petitioner filed writ petition in 2004 which was disposed of with the direction to decide representation on 15.2.2005. Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining, AIR 2009 SC 264 has held that highly belated claims should not be entertained and representations should not be directed to be decided if filed after a long time and that filing of repeated representations does not keep the claim or cause of action alive. 9. However, in pension matters Supreme Court has permitted/directed greater latitude. In S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, 2003 (1) ESC 17 (SC), claim for family pension made after 21 years was allowed on the ground that widow of the deceased railway employee was illiterate. In Shiv Das v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 1330, it has been held that question of entitlement to pension should be decided but relief beyond three years from the date of approaching the authorities/Court should not be granted. 10. Accordingly, as petitioner for the first time approached the authorities in June 2002 hence it is directed that she must be paid pension with effect from 1.7.1999. 11. Impugned order is therefore quashed. 12. Writ petition is allowed and it is directed that petitioner shall be paid pension w.e.f. 1.7.1999. Arrears shall be paid within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the authority concerned failing which 1.5% per month interest shall be payable thereupon since after four months till actual payment. ———