JUDGMENT :

ARUN, J.

Original petitions were filed by the State, challenging the orders by which the Kerala Administrative Tribunal allowed the original applications filed by State Government employees, directing service rendered by the applicants in statutory corporations and autonomous bodies, prior to their joining Government service, to be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The Tribunal had allowed the original applications based on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohammed Basheer A. v. State of Kerala and others [2014 (4) KHC 658]. In Mohammed Basheer, the Bench made a positive declaration regarding the entitlement of State Government employees to get their past service in autonomous bodies or public sector undertakings, reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The declaration was made based on Rules 11 and 20 of Part III KSR read with the relevant Government orders. While considering these original petitions, a Division Bench, made a reference to a larger Bench, noticing that in P.K. Babu v. Chief Engineer, KSEB and others [2007 (1) KLJ 35], a contrary view was taken, finding pension to be payable only on the basis of the rules in Part III KSR, taking into account the qualifying service reckoned in terms of the said rules. It was also noticed that in Dileeb B. v. Union of India and others [(2012) 3 KLJ 273], a learned Single Judge had, after careful scrutiny of all the contextually relevant Government orders, and Rule 20 of Part III KSR, expressed the same view as in P.K. Babu. For the purpose of making the reference, the Bench observed that the Government orders relied on in Mohammed Basheer to confer the benefit of reckoning past service in the autonomous bodies, did not postulate such reckoning of past service in autonomous bodies and that, in the absence of declaratory orders in terms of Rule 11 of Part III KSR, it is not the function of the court to extend the benefit, which is not covered by Rule 20 of Part III KSR.

2. Among these original petitions, in O.P(KAT) No.277 of 2018, the Tribunal denied the benefit of past service of the applicant in the Travancore Devaswom Board, holding that the Travancore Devaswom Board being an autonomous body established under the provisions of a separate enactment, namely, the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950; service rendered therein does not stand at par with the service in the statutory corporations or fully Government owned companies, which service was directed to be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in Mohammed Basheer.

3. The issue involved in W.A.No.1045 of 2019 is as to whether the aided School service of the writ petitioner could be reckoned as qualifying service along with her regular service in the Navodaya Vidyalaya. The writ appeal has been posted along with the other matters on the basis of a reference made by the Division Bench, on being apprised of the common reference order passed in these original petitions. In O.P.(KAT) No.237 of 2019, on retirement of the applicant from the Sales Tax Department, his prior service with the KSEB was reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The KSEB refused to remit the pro-rata pension contribution and on being called upon, the applicant remitted the amount. Thereupon, pension was computed and disbursed taking into account the applicant’s past service with the KSEB. Much later, the decision was reviewed and the applicant’s pension reduced, which was successfully challenged before the Tribunal.

4. In the other original petitions, as well as W.A. No.1291 of 2018, the impugned order directs reckoning of past service of the applicants with statutory corporations and autonomous bodies and fully owned Government Companies like the Kerala State Housing Board, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kerala Water Authority, Kerala State Road Development Board, Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd and the Kerala State Road Trans