Denial of pension to the petitioner in respect of the 14 years of service under the State Government prior to his leaving the same for joining the better employment under the I.C.A.R. (not a party to the present proceedings.) is the issue involved in this case.

2. The petitioner joined the Kerala Judicial Subordinate Service as L.D.Clerk on 10.1958 and after continuing there till 110.1969, he came to the Co-operative Department as L.D.Clerk on 110.1969 by way of inter departmental transfer, where he worked till 11.09.1972. While so, the petitioner who had registered his name with the Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, Thiruvananthapuram, as borne by Ext. P6 proceedings produced along with the reply affidavit, was sponsored by the said Exchange for selection and appointment as Office Assistant in a much higher scale of pay under the I.C.A.R.. On successful completion of the selection process, the petitioner was offered employment in the I.C.A.R., pursuant to which he was relieved from the post of L.D. Clerk in the Co-operative Department on 11.09.1972 A.N. on tendering resignation. The petitioner joined the service of I.C.A.R. as Office Assistant on the very next day, thus without any break in service. Later, the petitioner came out from the service of the I.C.A.R. on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.04.1993. Since the service benefits including timely promotions and the retirement benefits reckoning the service of the petitioner rendered under the State Government were denied to him, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam by filing O.A.No.233 of 1997 which was allowed by the Tribunal vide Ext. P1 order.

3. As per Ext. P1 order, the Tribunal had directed the I.C.A.R. and the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer by conducting a review by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in accordance with the rules and if recommended by the Committee, to give all consequential benefits of notional promotion with effect from the date the juniors of the petitioner were promoted on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC held on 13.07.1987. It was further directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Administrative Officer, if promoted as Administrative Officer on the recommendations of the DPC and to give all consequential benefits attached to the promoted posts. Over and above the said reliefs, the said respondents were also directed to recommend 14 years of service rendered by the petitioner under the State Government to re-calculate the pensionary benefits notwithstanding the fact whether contribution from the State Government had been received or not.

4. Aggrieved by the above verdict, the I.C.A.R. and others (except the State and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram) challenged the same by filing O.P. No.11273 of 2000. After considering the relevant facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide Ext.P1 was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide Ext.P2, with regard to the right for being considered for promotion. But with regard to the claim for reckoning 14 years of service rendered by the petitioner under the State Government and to re-calculate the pensionary benefits payable by the I.C.A.R. , the liability cast upon the I.C.A.R. was intercepted, making it clear that the employee (the petitioner herein) would be permitted to seek his remedy before the appropriate authority. The representation filed by the petitioner in furtherance to Ext. P2 verdict was left unattended by the State, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) 24613 of 2003.

5. After hearing both the sides, this Court vide Ext. P3 judgment directed the respondent/State to consider the representation of the petitioner, particularly in the light of Rule 29(b) of Part III K.S.R., after affording an oppor