The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment terms and employment status of the petitioners as part-time Aayahs determined their entitlement to the higher retirement age under the Kerala Service Rules.

1. The petitioners in these cases were originally appointed as Aayahs in Family Planning Department on a part-time basis on a payment of honorarium of Rs. 20 per month in the years 1965 and 1967. The honorarium was raised from time to time. Though the appointment was originally for a definite period, they continued to work in the same capacity. Between the years 1975 and 1979 the petitioners were appointed as part-time contingent employees. Some of them were promoted as hospital attendars, Grade II in the year 1978 and some in the year 1979. When they were asked to retire on attaining the age of 55 years, they have come to this Court with these petitions contending that they are entitled to continue in service until they attain the age of 60 years. The learned single judge has referred these cases to the Division Bench on the ground that important questions of law have arisen for consideration in these cases.

2. The petitioners claim that they are governed by R.60 (b) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. The said Rule provides that officers in the last grade service on 7th April, 1970 will retire on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 60 years provided that this benefit will be available to them only as long as they continue to be in the last grade service as defined in R.12(16-A). The status of the petitioners as on 7th April, 1970 is therefore required to be examined for deciding the question as to whether they are entitled to the higher age of retirement of 60 years. As on 7th April, 1970, the petitioners were holding employment as part-time Aayahs in the Family Planning Department for which service they were being paid honorarium. R.2(ii) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules provides that the rules shall apply to every person in the whole time employment of the Government other than a person so employed in the contingent or work establishment. In other words, the rules do not apply to persons employed in contingent or work establishment and the rules also do not apply to a person who is not in the whole time employment of the Government. The question for consideration is as to whether the petitioners can be regarded a persons who were in the whole time employment of the Government on the 7th of April, 1970, in order to claim the status of officers in the last grade service on that date. The orders of employment issued in favour of the petitioners make it clear that they were appointed on a part-time basis on payment of a fixed amount of honorarium. Sri. Madhusoodanan, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that notwithstanding the fact that the appointment of the petitioners were made as part-time Aayahs, they must be regarded as persons who were in whole time employment of the Government having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. In support of this contention he relied upon the averments made in the original petition. Ia para, 2 of the petition the petitioners have averred as follows:

"On 29-10-1965 the petitioner reported for duty at Vettakkal Family Planning Sub Centre. The petitioner has to do the field work of the Family Planning from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. and thereafter engaged in preparing and supplying nutritional food for children upto 5 p. m. The petitioner had also to help auxiliary nurse, midwife. The emolument for these tedious job was Rs. 20/- per mensem. Though the appointment of the petitioner was stated to be provisional do duration of the employment was mentioned in Exhibit P-1, appointment order. The work of the petitioner was neither occasional or of intermittent character. During the year 1968 the so called honorarium of Rs. 20/- was raised to Rs. 30/- and in 1971 to Rs. 60/- The relevant ground taken in this behalf is ground No. 2 which reads as follows:

"In virtue of the contentions in Ext. P5 memorandum the respondents ought to have treated the period of honorarium of 10 years included in service. As per R.12(15) Ch. I