Judgment :- 1. This petition has been referred to the Division Bench as it involves an important question of interpretation of R.14-A Part III of the K.S.R. Petitioner commenced his career as a Part-time Contingent Menial Employee. In course of time, he attained the status of Full Time Contingent Employee. He was later on absorbed in regular service on 2-1-1963. He attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31-1-1985. Even before the petitioner retired from service, he requested the Deputy Director of Education to take into account 50 per cent of the part-time service rendered by him for the purpose of determining the pension payable to him on attainment of superannuation. The Deputy Director of Education did not agree with the stand taken by the petitioner and conveyed bis decision as per Ext. P2 dated 10-7-84. He has stated therein that the part-time service of the petitioner was from 17-7-1947 to 21-1-1963 and full-time menial service was from 3-1-1963. He has further stated that if half of the part-time service of the petitioner is allowed to be counted for the purpose of determining the pension payable to the petitioner, he will be eligible for full pension for which special Government Order has to be obtained. In other words, in the normal circumstances the petitioner would not be entitled to count any portion of the part-time contingent service rendered by him for the purpose of quantifying the pension payable to him. It is in this background that the petitioner has approached this court under Art.226 of the Constitution. 2. The principal contention of Shri K. Sudhakaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that on a proper construction of R.14-A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules the only reasonable inference possible is that part-time contingent service is required to be taken into account to the extent of 50 per cent of the contingency service for purposes of pension. It is, therefore, clear that the decision rests entirely on the interpretation of R.14-A of Part II of the K.S.R. which proceeds as follows; "14-A. Contingent employees absorbed in regular establishment will be allowed to count SO per cent of the contingency service for purposes of pension: Provided that this rule will apply to cases of retirements from 2-9-1957 only (irrespective of the date of absorption of such employees into regular establishment) In cases of retirements on or after 1-4-1968 the entire full-time Contingency service will count for pension. Explanation. Periods of officiating, temporary service in regular establishment and/or periods of works establishment service interposed between periods of contingency service will be treated as contingency service." It is clear from R.14- A of Part III of K.S.R. that the rule-making authority has made a provision for taking into consideration contingent service rendered prior to the regular absorption in service for the limited purpose of pension. The first part of R.14-A says that 50 percent of the contingency service shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. It is made clear that this facility is available only in respect of persons who retire from service with effect from 29-9-1957. There is another portion of R.14-A, which in substance is in the nature of a proviso, which provides that in so far as persons who retire on or after 1-4-1968 are concerned, the entire full-time contingency service will count for pension. The petitioner in this case has retired from service on 31-1-1985, that is, after 1-4-1968. The authorities are also willing to give credit to the full-time contingent service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of pension. The authorities appear to think that the first part of R.14-A which speaks of contingency service does not take within its ambit part-time contingent service. The question for consideration is as to whether the expression 'contingency service' employed in the first part of R.14-A means and includes part-time contingency service as well. We have seen from the Kerala Service Rules and the Kerala Special Rules for Part-time contingency Service that the rule-making authority has employed all the three expressions, namely, contingency service, part-time contingency service and full-time contingency service. It is obvious that all the three expressions have been used to convey different meanings. We have seen from the Kerala Service Rules and the Kerala Special Rules for Part-time contingency Service that the rule-making authority has employed all the three expressions, namely, contingency service, part-time contingency service and full-time contingency service. It is obvious that all the three expressions have been used to convey different meanings. In our opinion, the expression 'contingency service' is the genus and the expressions 'part-time contingency' and 'full-time contingency' are species belonging to this genus. It therefore follows that when the rule-making authority has used the expression 'contingency service', it conveys that it refers to both part-time and full-time contingency service. The fact that in the last portion of R.14-A the rule-making authority has used the expression 'full time contingency service' makes it clear that the rule making authority would have used the expression 'full-time' in the first part of the rule if the intention of the rule making authority was to exclude part-time contingency service for the purpose of determining pension. As the expression 'full-time contingency service' has not been used in the first part of R.14-A and the wider expression 'contingency service' has been used, it makes it clear that the expression ‘contingency service' includes part-time contingency service as well. It therefore follows that the petitioner is entitled to 50 per cent of the part-time contingency service rendered by him for the purpose of computing pension. As the authorities have taken a contrary view, this original petition is entitled to succeed. For the reasons stated above, this original petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to fix the pension payable to the petitioner taking into account 50 per cent of the part-time contingency service rendered by the petitioner and to grant him all consequential benefits flowing from such determination. No costs. Allowed.