Antony Dominic, J.

1. The respondent herein had worked as Teacher and Headmaster in aided schools in the State for the period from 06/07/1953 to 25/03/1968. Thereafter he resigned from service and his own representation Ext. P2 shows that the resignation was for better prospects. By Ext. P2 dated 14/08/1999, he applied for pension. This was followed by various representations claiming pensionary benefits and all these representations were rejected on the ground that as per Rule 29(a) of Part III KSR, a person who has resigned from service will have to forfeit his past service. It was in such circumstances, he filed the writ petition with a prayer to declare that Rule 29(a) of Part III KSR is unconstitutional and also to quash orders rejecting his claim for pension. Consequential directions for the grant of pension were also sought for. In the writ petition the respondent also placed reliance on Exts. P7 and P8, whereby, according to him, two similarly situated persons were granted pension and contended that he was also entitled to be treated on par with them and granted pensionary benefits on that basis. The appellants filed counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the respondent, mainly placing reliance on Rule 29(a) of Part III KSR. They also justified Exts. P7 and P8 as orders passed in two deserving cases which were incomparable to the case of the respondent. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that Rule 29(a) of Part III KSR is violative of Article 14 and hence unconstitutional. Consequently, the orders rejecting the claim of the respondent were quashed and the appellants were directed to reconsider the claim of the respondent under Rule 11 of Part III KSR duly adverting to the observations in the judgment and with reference to Exts. P7 and P8. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.

2. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. While according to the learned Government Pleader, Rule 29(a) is perfectly constitutional and the view taken by the learned Single Judge is illegal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the conclusions of the learned Single Judge.

3. We have considered the submissions made. Part III KSR contains the Rules governing grant of pension to Government servants. Among the various conditions, which govern the grant of pensionary benefits, one of the conditions incorporated by the Government is Rule 29(a), which provide for forfeiture of past service in the case of resignation or dismissal or removal from public service. This Rule reads thus:

29. Resignation and Dismissals.--(a) Resignation of the Public Service or dismissal or removal from it, entails forfeiture of past service.

(b) Resignation of an appointment to take up another appointment the service in which counts is not resignation from public service.

Note.--The break between the two appointments should not exceed the joining time admissible under the service rules plus the public holidays.

4. The Kerala Service Rules are framed by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore is in the nature of law. The only ground on which the Rule is held unconstitutional is that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as according to the respondent, a person who has resigned from service after long and unblemished service is equated with persons who are dismissed from service or removed from service for misconducts committed while in service. This according to the respondent is discriminatory, attracting the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. We are unable to accept this logic. Rule 29(a) is intended to provide for forfeiture of past service of persons, in whose case there is premature cessation of service. Such cessation can occur for various reasons including death, resignation, dismissa