1. The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16953/2011. Having failed before the learned Single Judge, they have come up in appeal. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows:

Appellants 1 and 2 entered the service of the 2nd respondent, a duly constituted Cooperative Society as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, on 6.5.1981 and 27.7.1981 respectively. On completing their probation, they were regularized, continued in the service and retired from service on superannuation while working as Assistant Secretary and Head Clerk on 30.11.2010 and 31.12.2010 respectively. At the time of their entry in service, there was no provision for pension. With effect from 3.6.1993, Contributory Pension was introduced as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees’ Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pension Scheme’). Upon commencement of the Pension Scheme, they were enrolled on 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983 respectively, the dates on which their probation was satisfactorily completed. From the above respective dates onwards the 2nd respondent had been remitting their contribution to the 1st respondent, the Kerala State Cooperative Employees Pension Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pension Board’). While so, the 2nd respondent wrote Ext.P3 letter to the Secretary of the Pension Board requesting the Pension Board to reckon the period during which the appellants and seven other employees were on probation as qualifying service for computation of pension. The request was accompanied by a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent. The Pension Board in turn sent Ext.P4 letter dated 26.12.2007 asking the 2nd respondent to remit the pension contribution. Accordingly, by Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent remitted a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 31.7.2009.

But, to the surprise of the appellants, on their retirement, when they got Exts.P1 to P2 pension orders, it was noticed that their period of probation was not counted for computing pension. Thereupon, they preferred Exts.P7 and P8 representation to the Secretary of the Pension Board requesting to reckon the period of their probation as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and also to refix the pension accordingly. Responding to Exts.P7 and P8, by Ext.P9 letter dated 18.5.2011 the request of the appellants was declined. Assailing Exts.P1, P2 and P9, with a contention that as per the Pension Scheme, the appellants are entitled to count their period of probation as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, the Writ Petition was filed seeking a writ to quash Exts.P1, P2 and P9 and also for a declaration that they are entitled to count their period of probation as qualifying service for pension and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Board to recomputed the pension accordingly.

2. The 1st respondent took up a defence that, the appellants were not on probation as on the date of the commencement of Pension Scheme and that they had enrolled in the Scheme only from 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983. Therefore, they are not entitled to count their period of probation as qualifying service for computing pension. The learned Single Judge, after upholding the defence, dismissed the Writ Petition. The contribution remitted as per Ext.P6 by the 2nd respondent was ordered to be refunded. Now this Writ Appeal.

3. We have heard Sri.S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Sri P.V.Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the records.

4. It is not disputed that the appellants enrolled in the Scheme only with effect from 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983 respectively upon the commencement of the Pension Scheme on 3.6.1993. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, by virtue of the 3rd proviso to paragraph 19(1)(a) of the Pension Scheme the appellants are entitled to count their period of probation as qualifying service for