THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant-Rubber Board has approached this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge because it has mulcted them with the liability of sharing the amount of pension due to the 1st respondent on a pro-rata basis, for a certain period he served with them, prior to entering the service of the Government of Kerala.

2. Sri.Issac Thomas – learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, argued that, though his client has approached this Court on the assertion that they are not liable to honour the pro-rata portion of pension eligible to the 1st respondent, the situation has been totally altered on account of the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Jose Cyriac [2024 (2) KLT 334]. He pointed out that, in the judgment, the declaration is that the respondent is not entirely to have his past service with the ‘Rubber Board’ reckoned for pension. He contended that, therefore, not only is his client not liable to make any payment towards pension of the respondent, but a situation has arisen where the latter w