The main legal point established in the judgment is the harmonious interpretation of R.14A of Part.3 and R.2 of Part.1 of KSR, and the inclusion of 'special provision' within the KSR itself as mentioned in R.3(i)(a) of Part.1 KSR.

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.

1. These two writ petitions have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that an earlier Division Bench decision reported in Vasu Pillai v. State of Kerala (1986 KLT 198) requires reconsideration inasmuch in the said decision, reference has been made only to Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter after referred to as 'KSR') Part. 3 R.14A, but no reference has been made to R.2 Part.1 of KSR. The matter relates to pension payable to employees, who had, at some point in their earliest career, worked as part time contingent employees and later as full time contingent employees before being regularly absorbed in some ether cadre. The employees claim the benefit of R.14A of Part.3 of KSR and want to count part or whole of the period during which they worked as part time contingent employees or full time contingent employees as provided in R.14A of Part.3. This Court accepted such a contention in Vasu Pillai's case (1986 KLT 198). But the learned single Judge who referred these matters to the Division Bench was of the view that in Vasu Pillai's Case (1986 KLT 198), the attention of the Court was not invited to R.2(ii) of Part.1 of KSR which states that the 'Kerala Service Rules shall apply to every person in the whole time employment of the Government (other than a person so employed in the contingent or work establishment).' The learned Judge, therefore, thought that in the case of contingent employees, they are excluded from the purview of Part.3 of KSR because according to learned Judge, the provisions in R.2(ii) of Part T of KSR over rides the provision in R.14A of Part.3. According to the learned Judge, when the Kerala Service Rules are to apply only to persons in whole time employment of the government, other than a person so employed in the contingent or work establishment, there is no question of applying R.14A of Part.3 to contingent employees. That is the point which has now been referred to the Division Bench. The learned Judge has, in this context, referred to two other decisions of this Court rendered by Division Benches in Thankamma v. Dist. Medical Officer (1986 KLT 1170) and Kochu Kunju v. State of Kerala (1986 KLT 1281) wherein while dealing that R.2 of Part.1 of Chap.1 KSR, it has been held that the rule therein in question did not apply to contingent employees at all whether they were whole time or part time. In those cases, the Court was considering R.60 (b) of Part.1 of KSR. According to the learned Judge, who referred these two O. Ps. to Division Bench, the view taken by this Court in the two last mentioned cases is contrary to the view taken in Vasu Pillai's case (1986 KLT 198). Therefore, the learned Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned Government Pleader. We are of the view that the decision in Vasu Pillai's case (1986 KLT 198) is correct and does not require reconsideration even on the basis of R.2 of Part.1 KSR or what is held in the subsequent two cases in Thankamma's case (1986 KLT 1170) and Kochu kunju's case (1986 KLT 1281).

3. Before going into these aspects, it will be worthwhile to refer to a few facts relevant in both the cases.

4. In O.P. 12836 of 1992 petitioner had served as part time contingent menial from 20-7-1962 to 4-1-1977 and as a peon (full time) from 5-1-1977 to 30-6-1992. These facts are available from the statement filed by the second respondent. It further stated that the petitioner therein has got 14 years 5 months and 16 days of part time contingent service and 15 years 5 months and 26 days of full time service. It is stated that his full time service alone has been reckoned for sanctioning pensionary benefits and that his request for reckoning 50% of the part time service for pensionary benefits was rejected. It is stated that the part time contingent service was not taken into account as 'there was no authority for the same'. Relian