JUDGMENT Rajan Roy,J. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3 in pursuance to order of this court dated 14-9-2016. 2. Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner made a categorical statement that reply to the said affidavit is not required and the matter be heard finally. Therefore, the matter is being heard after taking the aforesaid affidavit on record. 3. This writ petition was filed in the year 2013 seeking the following reliefs: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashed the impugned order dated 1.1.2013 and improved government letter dated 8.4.2009 written by the State Government to the Director of Education (Basic) as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of pension to the petitioner w.e.f 1.7.2007 including the arrears with all consequential benefits with 12% interest per annum. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of difference of salary to the petitioner paid from grant-in-aid provided to the management for payment of salary to Three Language Assistant Teachers and the regular salary till the institution been taken into grant-in-aid list i.e. upto 2.12.2006." 4. The petitioner claims to have been engaged as an Assistant Teacher under the Three Language Formula/ scheme which came into force in the year 1964. 5. The contention of Shri Parihar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that all along the petitioner was appointed under the aforesaid scheme regarding which there is no dispute. Secondly it was submitted by him that all along the petitioner was paid salary from the State Exchequer, even though the institution in which he was appointed was an unaided Institution. The petitioner on being retired from service on 30th June 2007 was entitled to payment of pension as per the old pension scheme applicable to government servants as also teachers of of institutions receiving grant-in-aid i.e. the scheme prevailing prior to 1.4.2005, and not subsequent Contributory Pension Scheme which came into force with effect from 1-4-2005, consequent to issuance of the notification dated 28-3-2005. Instead of granting pension under the old scheme his claim has been rejected arbitrarily and illegally by means of the impugned order dated 1-1-2013. Instead of granting pension under the old scheme his claim has been rejected arbitrarily and illegally by means of the impugned order dated 1-1-2013. As far as the challenge to the government order dated 8-4-2009, contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, by which it has been held that new entrants would be entitled to pension under the New Pension Scheme which has come into effect from 1-4-2005 is concerned, contention of Sri Parihar was that there is no such stipulation in the government order dated 28th March 2005 by which the said New Scheme has come into force. Moreover the said government orders referred to the new entrants which obviously the petitioner was not, as he had been appointed prior to 1-4-2005, therefore, clearly the said stipulation in the government order dated 8-4-2009 was not applicable. First and foremost the petitioner has to establish his case that he is entitled to pension, and thereafter if this hurdle is crossed, the next question to be considered would be as to whether he is entitled to pension under the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme which came into effect from 1-4-2005. 6. Admittedly the petitioner herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher under the Three Language formula scheme in an "unaided educational institution". The only basis for the claim to pension is the fact that the petitioner was paid salary from the State Exchequer, however, as stated by Shri Neeraj Chaurasia, learned counsel appearing for the State, relying upon the Division Bench judgement of this court rendered on 9-8-2010 in Special Appeal No. 1287 of 2009, the teachers appointed under the aforesaid Triple Language Formula/ Scheme initiated in the year 1964 and continued thereafter were not entitled to salary from the State Exchequer in the first place, as, the said scheme was applicable only in respect of "non-government aided institutions" as held by the Division Bench which has also held that in spite of it the officers of the government under some misconception continued to pay crores of rupees to such teachers of unaided institutions, though, they were not entitled to do so. The Division Bench held that as the Teachers were not at fault therefore the amount paid would not be recoverable from them and issued certain directions for modifications in the policy/legislative enactments as regards payment of salary and creation of posts keeping in mind the observations/directions contained in the judgement. 7. In view of the aforesaid Division Bench Judgement the legal position has been clarified that the teachers appointed under the aforesaid scheme, such as the petitioner, were not entitled to salary from the State Exchequer in the first place. It being so the very foundation on which Shri Parihar has sought to build the edifice of his arguments claiming pension for the petitioner falls down. 8. As the petitioner was not entitled to salary from the State Exchequer in the first place and as there is nothing on record to show that as per the terms and conditions of his appointment, his appointment in un-aided institution was against a post which was pensionable, the petitioner having asserted the aforesaid claim was under an obligation to prove his case, which he has failed to do. The court has no doubt that the burden in this regard cannot be shifted upon the State. In any case, as aforesaid, once it is held that the petitioner was not entitled to salary from the State Exchequer, then a fortiori he would not be entitled to pension from the Government. 9. As far as the application of the Contributory Pension Scheme is concerned, admittedly the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit thereunder, as, after the institution, where he was working, was brought on grant-in-aid list on 2nd December 2006 the petitioner retired within a short period i.e. on 30th June 2007, however, without recording any conclusive opinion in this regard, if he is entitled to any benefit under the New Scheme he may claim the same and the authorities shall consider accordingly, but so far as pension under the old scheme is concerned, this court has no doubt that he is not entitled to the same. 10. The challenge to the government order dated 8-4-2009, therefore, has no factual and legal basis and the same is rejected. The impugned order can also not be faulted for the reasons aforesaid. 11. 10. The challenge to the government order dated 8-4-2009, therefore, has no factual and legal basis and the same is rejected. The impugned order can also not be faulted for the reasons aforesaid. 11. At this stage, Shri Parihar very fairly informed the court that the government order dated 8-4-2009 has also been upheld by this court in writ petition no. 3458 (SS) of 2009 and the said order has been upheld in Special appeal No. 123 of 2013. 12. The writ petition is dismissed subject however to the aforesaid.