Giri, J.

The issues that have been formulated for consideration by the Full Bench can be, as a matter of convenience, encapsulated as hereunder:

(1) Whether the service as a daily wage employee rendered by a person, at the instance of the employer, after he has been selected for regular appointment by the Public Service Commission {for short "the Commission"} and duly advised in that regard, can be taken as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits?

(2) As a corollary, does the service rendered as a daily wage employee or a casual employee in an organization, where the Kerala Service Rules have been adopted for all relevant purposes, in circumstances other than what is mentioned in Issue No.1 above, be eligible to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension?

2. The issues have arisen for consideration in the context of an employee, who after advice by the PSC, was nevertheless appointed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') as a Driver on daily wages. He was later absorbed into regular service and retired while continuing in the said post. The Corporation declined to count the services rendered byhim as a daily wage employee in the same post, as part of the qualifying service for pension and hence, the writ petition was filed by him for appropriate direction to the Corporation to take into account such service also for the purpose of determining whether he is entitled to draw pension. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. The Corporation appealed against the judgment.

3. The writ petitioner inter alia relied on the dictum laid down by a Bench of this court in Idicula v. KSRTC {2005 KLJ 602} and the judgment in W.A.No.1066/03.

4. The Bench before which the appeal came up was inclined to take a different view and opined that it would be appropriate that the matter be referred to a larger bench. It is, therefore, that the matter has come up before us.

5. The writ petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission {for short 'the Commission'} to the post of driver in the Corporation. The selection consisted of a written test and an interview. Though the test and the interview were conducted in 1984 and 1986, appointment was delayed till 1989. In the meanwhile, the Commission had prepared a rank list. By Ext.P4 dated 22.4.1989, the petitioner was informed that he has been advised as a 'Reserve Driver' in the Corporation, on the time scale of Rs.145-270. By Ext.P5 appointment order dated 30.5.1989, the Corporation appointed the petitioner as a Reserve Driver. Ext.P5 refers to the advice list, Ext.P4. But, nevertheless, as per Ext.P5, the petitioner was appointed as a Reserve Driver, a cadre post otherwise borne on a time scale of pay, on daily wages to be calculated at the rate of Rs.126/-at the minimum in the scale of pay for the lowest grade of Reserve Driver, plus Dearness Allowance admissible thereon.

6. It is common case that the petitioner commenced service pursuant to Ext.P5 and while so, by Ext.P6 dated 7.6.1990, he among others, were absorbed as Driver Grade II with effect from 21.3.1990. The petitioner continued in service till 31.8.1998, when he retired therefrom. After retirement, he continued in service as an Empanelled Driver, but the period during which he rendered service as Empanelled Driver, is not the subject matter of controversy. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. The dispute relates to the manner in which the period, during which the petitioner had rendered service, from the date on which he commenced service on 30.5.1989 pursuant to Ext.P5 till the date on which he was absorbed into regular service as evidenced by Ext.P6 viz., 21.3.1990, is to be treated.

7. The Corporation took the stand that the service rendered by the petitioner for the aforesaid period was as a daily wage employee. The petitioner contended that his appointment by Ext.P5 as a daily wage employee was after he wa