Prior government service must be considered for pension computation if previously established by legal precedent.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner states that she entered Government service through the Kerala Public Service Commission and was appointed as L.D. Investigator / Compiler in the Economics and Statistics Department with effect from

24.11.1986.

2. While so, the petitioner was deputed to the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board as Assistant Statistical Officer with effect from 10.06.1992. The deputation period was extended till 23.01.1997. The petitioner was reverted to the parent department and was relieved on 25.01.1997. The petitioner took up regular appointment through PSC in the 1^st respondent-Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board as Assistant Statistical Officer and she was later promoted as Statistician and finally retired on superannuation on 31.05.2015 as Project Officer.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent has not reckoned the prior service rendered by the petitioner in Economics and Statistics Department from 24.11.1986 to 25.01.1997 along with her service in the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board for the purpose of computation of pension.

4. The petitioner would submit that in view of the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Basheer A. v. State of Kerala [2014 (4) KHC 658] , the period of earlier service is liable to be counted for pension as per the law prevailed then. The petitioner therefore seeks to direct the 1^st respondent to reckon her prior service.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

6. From the pleadings, I find that the petitioner is relying on the judgment in Mohammed Basheer A. (supra) for the purpose of reckoning of prior service of computation of pension.

7. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 representation in this regard before the 1^st respondent. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the 1^st respondent considers Ext.P9 representation in the light of the judgment in Mohammed Basheer A. (supra) and takes appropriate decisions thereon in accordance with law.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-