Ashok Bhushan, A.C.J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 13/12/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.C.No.22254/2010 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition imposing cost of Rs.10,000/-against the State Government and directed the State Government to issue order revising pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner by reckoning previous service put by her in aided school for the period from 06/06/1979 to 22/09/1987. The Division Bench, while hearing this writ appeal, has also issued a direction on 09/09/2013 to the Government to explain as to why special treatment was extended to the employees at Exts.P4, P5 and P6 by giving similar benefits to them as compared to the case of the present respondent/writ petitioner.

2. The brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the writ appeal are as follows:

The respondent, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioner', had worked as High School Assistant, Sanskrit in an aided school from 06/06/1979 to 22/11/1987. On the advice of Kerala Public Service Commission, the writ petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), where she joined on 23/11/1987. The petitioner retired on 31/12/2007 from the service of the Board. Even prior to her retirement, the petitioner had written to the Government to reckon her aided school service for the pensionary benefits. The State Government rejected the claim of the petitioner referring to the Regulations of the Kerala State Housing Board. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.C.No.8122/2009. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had relied on similar orders issued by the Government directing the Board to reckon the prior service for calculating the pensionery benefits. The learned Single Judge, vide its judgment dated 27/10/2009, directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the proposal submitted by the 3rd respondent for reckoning the prior service rendered by the petitioner in the Aided School. The learned Single Judge directed that the matter shall be reconsidered duly adverting to Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P6(a) and fresh orders shall be passed. Subsequent to the said order dated 27/10/2009, the State Government issued an order on 01/02/2010 again rejecting the proposal of the Board to count the past service of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner was not in Government service. Hence her earlier service could not have been reckoned. The order was again challenged by means of W.P.C.No.6429/2010 by the petitioner wherein a judgment of the Division Bench in Abdul Jabbar v. K.S.E.B [2010(1) KLT 586] was also relied. The learned Single Judge, noticing the earlier litigation, made an observation in favour of the petitioner and passed an order directing the respondent to revise the pensionary benefits in accordance with law. Following are the directions issued in paragraph 3 of the judgment.

“In the facts, as noticed above, I see no reason to take a view different from one taken by the Division Bench in Ext.P17 judgment in Abdul Jabbar v. K.S.E.B (2010(1) KLT 586). Therefore the rejection of the petitioner's request by Exts.P3 & P16 are set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner reckoning her previous service in the aided school for the period from 06/06/1979 to 22/11/1987, in accordance with law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.”

3. After the order of this Court dated 25/05/2010, the Government had again issued an order on 01/07/2010 reiterating the view that the petitioner, being not a Government servant, no rule enables her to claim prior service in aided school for reckoning pensionary benefits. Order of the Government on 01/07/2010 was challenged by the writ petitioner by means of W.P.C.No.22254/2010 which had been al