Judgment :- 1. The petitioners in these cases were originally appointed as Aayahs in Family Planning Department on a part-time basis on a payment of honorarium of Rs. 20 per month in the years 1965 and 1967. The honorarium was raised from time to time. Though the appointment was originally for a definite period, they continued to work in the same capacity. Between the years 1975 and 1979 the petitioners were appointed as part-time contingent employees. Some of them were promoted as hospital attendars, Grade II in the year 1978 and some in the year 1979. When they were asked to retire on attaining the age of 55 years, they have come to this Court with these petitions contending that they are entitled to continue in service until they attain the age of 60 years. The learned single judge has referred these cases to the Division Bench on the ground that important questions of law have arisen for consideration in these cases. 2. The petitioners claim that they are governed by R.60 (b) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. The said Rule provides that officers in the last grade service on 7th April, 1970 will retire on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 60 years provided that this benefit will be available to them only as long as they continue to be in the last grade service as defined in R.12(16-A). The status of the petitioners as on 7th April, 1970 is therefore required to be examined for deciding the question as to whether they are entitled to the higher age of retirement of 60 years. As on 7th April, 1970, the petitioners were holding employment as part-time Aayahs in the Family Planning Department for which service they were being paid honorarium. R.2(ii) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules provides that the 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. In other words, the rules do not apply to persons employed in contingent or work establishment and the rules also do not apply to a person who is not in the whole time employment of the Government. In other words, the rules do not apply to persons employed in contingent or work establishment and the rules also do not apply to a person who is not in the whole time employment of the Government. The question for consideration is as to whether the petitioners can be regarded a persons who were in the whole time employment of the Government on the 7th of April, 1970, in order to claim the status of officers in the last grade service on that date. The orders of employment issued in favour of the petitioners make it clear that they were appointed on a part-time basis on payment of a fixed amount of honorarium. Sri. Madhusoodanan, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that notwithstanding the fact that the appointment of the petitioners were made as part-time Aayahs, they must be regarded as persons who were in whole time employment of the Government having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. In support of this contention he relied upon the averments made in the original petition. Ia para, 2 of the petition the petitioners have averred as follows: "On 29-10-1965 the petitioner reported for duty at Vettakkal Family Planning Sub Centre. The petitioner has to do the field work of the Family Planning from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. and thereafter engaged in preparing and supplying nutritional food for children upto 5 p. m. The petitioner had also to help auxiliary nurse, midwife. The emolument for these tedious job was Rs. 20/- per mensem. Though the appointment of the petitioner was stated to be provisional do duration of the employment was mentioned in Exhibit P-1, appointment order. The work of the petitioner was neither occasional or of intermittent character. During the year 1968 the so called honorarium of Rs. 20/- was raised to Rs. 30/- and in 1971 to Rs. 60/- The relevant ground taken in this behalf is ground No. 2 which reads as follows: "In virtue of the contentions in Ext. P5 memorandum the respondents ought to have treated the period of honorarium of 10 years included in service. As per R.12(15) Ch. II Part I of K. S. R. the honorarium means remuneration for special work of a occasional or intermittent character. On a reading of Ext. P5 memorandum the respondents ought to have treated the period of honorarium of 10 years included in service. As per R.12(15) Ch. II Part I of K. S. R. the honorarium means remuneration for special work of a occasional or intermittent character. On a reading of Ext. P1, appointment order, and considering the nature of service rendered by the petitioner, it could be seen that the work was neither occasional nor intermittent but continuous and uninterrupted. Hence the service of 10 years from 29-10-1965 to 6-5-1975 should be accounted so as to enable the petitioner to claim the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 as contemplated under R.60(b) of Part I Kerala Service Rules." It was pointed out by Sri. Madhusoodanan, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the averment of the petitioners that they, worked from 8 a. m. to 5 p. m. has not been controverted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. He therefore submitted that we must proceed on the basis that the petitioners worked from 8 a. m. to 5 p. m. in the same manner as full-time employees of the Government worked. On that basis it was contended that we should draw the inference that the petitioners were whole time employees of the Government. 3. It is necessary to point out that neither in Para.2 nor in ground No. 2 of the petition no such averment is made by the petitioners. As the petitioners themselves have not pleaded in clear terms that they had become full-time Government employees, the question of the respondents controverting the case of the petitioners in this behalf did notarise. Besides, we are not inclined to accept the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they may be regarded as whole time employees merely on the ground that they actually worked from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. They were employed expressly as part-time employees on payment of fixed honorarium. The wordings in the order of appointment are clear to the effect that the appointment is on a part-time basis. The wordings in the order of appointment are clear to the effect that the appointment is on a part-time basis. When the appointment itself was on part-time basis and when that appointment has not been modified or altered in any manner thereafter, it is not possible to draw the inference that the petitioners became whole time employees even assuming for the sake of arguments that there is truth in the submission of the petitioners that they in fact worked from 8 a. m. to S p. m. Hence we must hold that the petitioners have failed to establish that they were in whole time employment of the Government, as the facts clearly disclose that they were part-time employees of the Government. R.2(ii) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules applies and therefore none of the provisions of the K.. S. R. were applicable to them on 7th of April, 1970. Consequently it follows that no part of R.60 of Part I of the Rules applied to the petitioners in these cases on the 7th of April 1970. That being the position, the petitioners cannot claim statuses officers in the last grade service on the 7th of April, 1970. As they were not in the last grade service on the 7th of April, 1970, they were not entitled to the benefit of higher age of retirement by invoking clause (b) of R.60 of Part I of the Rules. 4. What we have said above is precisely the view already taken by one of the learned judges of this Court in T. L. R.1984(2) Kerala 596 between Mariam and District Educational Officer & Others. The view taken therein is correct and the contrary view taken by another learned judge of this Court and reported in 1982 K. L. T. 638 between Chellappan Pillai and State of Kerala cannot be regarded as good law. 5. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are entitled to opt to serve as part-time contingent employees and to remain in service till they attain the age of 70 years under the relevant orders of the State Government. It was submitted that as the petitioners were agitating their rights before this Court in these original petitions, some of them might not have exercised option in this behalf within the specified time. It was submitted that as the petitioners were agitating their rights before this Court in these original petitions, some of them might not have exercised option in this behalf within the specified time. We make it clear that the failure on the part of the petitioners in not exercising option under the relevant orders in this behalf should not work to their detriment if the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under the relevant orders of the Government. If the period for exercising option has expired during the pendency of these original petitions, they would be entitled to exercise such option within a month from this date. If they exercise such option within one month from this date, their case for continuance as part-time contingent employees till the age of 70 years under the relevant orders shall be considered by the respondents as expeditiously as possible. 6. We also make it clear that the petitioners who continued in service on the strength of interim orders shall not be directed to refund the emoluments which they received for working on the strength of interim orders made during the pendency of these cases. Subject to the aforesaid observations these original petitions fail and are dismissed. Photostat copy of the order be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners on usual terms. Dismissed.