Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. The issue in the Writ Petition is whether the benefit of Provident Fund should be extended to an employee retroactively, i.e., beyond the date when she joined the then existing Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. On 01.09.1981 the petitioner joined the service of the third respondent Society as a Secretary on a consolidated pay. In due course, she got her appointment approved with effect from 08.05.1981, through Exhibit P1 proceedings dated 29.05.1982.

2. Later, with a view to pursuing higher studies, the petitioner went on leave from 01.04.1986 to 20.03.1988 on an undertaking that she would rejoin her service in a lower cadre. Accordingly, after exhausting her sanctioned leave, the petitioner did rejoin the service on 21.03.1988 as a Junior Clerk.

3. As the record bears out, the petitioner, having served the third respondent society in different capacities, eventually in 2014 retired as an Assistant Secretary after attaining the age of superannuation. When her pension claim was settled, the initial period of her service from 01.09.1981 to 21.03.1988 had not been included. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P3 representation, in response to which the third respondent Society passed Exhibit P4 resolution accepting the petitioner's claim.

4. Though the third respondent Society forwarded the Exhibit P4 resolution with a positive recommendation to include the petitioner's initial period of service, the second respondent, the Pension Board, however, through Exhibit P5 Order rejected the claim. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Section 61 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (the 'Act' for brevity), read with Rule 58 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the 'Rules' for brevity), the third respondent Society has initially established the Contributory Provident Fund. He has also submitted that in 1993 when the self-financing pension scheme was introduced, the third respondent society took advantage of it and joined the said scheme. As a result, all the existing employees, including the petitioner, have been extended the benefit of pension under the self-financing scheme.

6. The singular contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been in service since 1981. She cannot, for whatever reason, be denied the benefit of having her service from 01.09.1981 to 21.03.1988 reckoned for the purpose of pension. The petitioner's going on a sanctioned leave would not, according to the learned counsel, amount to any break in service.

7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Board has, in fact, not contradicted the factual position as presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has, nevertheless, submitted that in terms of Clause 19 of Co-operative Societies Employees' Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, the qualifying service shall be reckoned from the date when the employee joined the Contributory Pension Fund Scheme. An employee's actual date of joining the service, contends the learned Standing Counsel, has nothing to do with the reckoning of the period for extending the pensionary benefit.

8. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the inspecting officer has found that the petitioner joined the then existing Contributory Provident Fund Scheme only from 21.03.1988. In other words, the petitioner is deemed to have joined the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme only from the date of her rejoining the service after availing herself of the sanctioned leave for educational purposes. In support of his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on Purushothaman v. Kerala State Co-operative Employee's Pension Board (2011 (3) KLT 250).

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees' Pension Board, and the learned Government Pleader, as well