JUDGMENT VENKATACHALA, J.:- These appeals by special leave, of the State of Karnataka are directed against a common order of the KarnatakaAdministrative Tribunal ( "the KAT" made on September 3, 1990 in Review Applications Nos. 204 and 220 of 1989. 2. K.Vasudeva Mayya respondent I was a Govt. servant belonging to the cadre of KAS. Group-A (Junior Scale.) He was working as Secretary, Karnataka Housing Board on 31-7-1984, when hw was ordered to retire on attaining the superannuation age of 55 years. However, he was re-employed by the State Government on contract basis w.e.f. 1-8-1994. Subject to the conditions of service contained in R. 313(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 ( "the KCS Rules," as Secretary to the Chairman, Karnataka State Sports Council, for the period conterminous with that of the Chairman. 3. A.H. Someshwar, respondent 2, who belonged to the Karanataka State Secretarial Service, was ordered to retire on 31-3-1984 on attaining the superannuation age of 55 years, while he was working as Joint Secretary to Government. However, he was re-employed by the State Government on contract basis w.e.f. 1-4-1984 subject to the conditions of service in R. 313(b) of the KCS Rules, as Secretary, Dr. Sangini Mahishi Committee, for the period conterminous with that of the Committee. 4. While respondents 1 and 2 were in State Civil Services, on their re-employement, the State Government issued an order dated 24-8-1994 enhancing the retirement superannuation age of all Government servants in State Civil Service from 55 years to 58 years and gave retrospective effect to it from 2-8-1984. Subsequently, the Government issued another order dated 17-9-1984 treating some of the retired Government servants who had retired on superannuation at the age of 55 years, but had been re-employed in State Civil Service on contract basis as those continuing in State Civil Service till they attained the superannuation age of 58 years, if they were to satisfy, three conditions specified thereunder. Since respondent 1 satisfied the three conditions of the Government order dated 17-9-1984, the State Government by its order dated 5-6-1985, treated respondent 1 as one who had continued in regular Civil Service and appointed him as Assistant Director (Co-ordination). Directorate Backward Classes and Minorities, Bangalore, vice: Sri R. Stanly Joseph promoted. Since respondent 1 satisfied the three conditions of the Government order dated 17-9-1984, the State Government by its order dated 5-6-1985, treated respondent 1 as one who had continued in regular Civil Service and appointed him as Assistant Director (Co-ordination). Directorate Backward Classes and Minorities, Bangalore, vice: Sri R. Stanly Joseph promoted. Thereafter, the State Government by its order dated 3-7-1987 retired respondent 1 from service on 31-7-1987 (A/N) when he attained the superannuation age of 58 years on 15-7-1987 as was being done in respect of other regular Government servants. Similarly, respondent 2 who satisfied by three conditions of the said Government Order dated 17-9-1984 who has been specificially continued in State Civil service as Joint Secretary to Government under Government order dated 25-1-1985 was subsequently retired from service w.e.f. 31-3-1987 when he also attained the superannuation age of 58 years. However the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987 ( the Revised Pay Rules" came into force w.e.f. 1-7-1986 enhancing the scales of pay of the State Government servants while respondents 1 and 2 had continued in State Civil Service because of specific orders made in that regard on the basis of Government order dated 17-9-1984 which treated the periods of re-employment also as their regular continuing Civil Service. Yet, the benefits of the Revised Pay Rules were denined to the respondents as regards their pay and pension. This situation led respondents 1 and 2 to the filing of a joint Application No. 2382 of 1987 before the KAT, calling in question a provision in the Revised Pay Rules which had made those Rules inapplicab;e to pensioners who had been re-employed in Government service after retirement. However, while the first relief claimed in that application was that the respondents should be given the benefit of the Revised Pay Rules, the second relief claimed therein was that the service rendered by each of them to the State between their earlier retirement at the superannuation age of 55 years and their subsequent retirement at their superannuation age of 58 years ought to be taken into account as their continued State Civil Service for computing their pensionary benefits. 5. 5. The KAT which decided that application by its order dated 11-10-1988 while held that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the Revised Pay Rules and directed the State to give the benefit of those Revised Pay Rules to them disallowed the claim of the respondents for counting the period of their service between their earlier superannuation and thier subsequent superannuation for granting their pensionary benefits. However, the respondents by making Review Application No. 204 of 1989 and the State by making Review Application No. 220 of 1989 before the KAT sought from it review of the said order dated 11-10-1988 in so far gone against each of them. The KAT on consideration of the said Review Application by its common order made in them on 3-9-1990 while allowed the review application of the respondents dismissed the Review Applications of the State. It is the said common order made in the review applications which is questioned by the State in the present appeals by special leave. 6. Shri Altaf Ahmad, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant State did not dispute the fact that by reason of the Government order dated 17-9-1984 the respondents who had been ordered by the Government to retire after they had completed their superannuation age of 55 years and re-employed on contract basis were treated as Government servants who had continued in Government service from such date of superannuation age until they attained their superannuation age of 58 years. But, he contended rather strenuously, that the respondents periods of continuance in Government service after their earlier retirements on attaining 55 years of superannuation age until their subsequent retirements on their attaining 58 years of superannuation age under the Government order dated 17-9-1984 when was subject also to the condition mentioned therein, viz., "that there shall not be any change in the nature or character or conditions of service of the re-employement or the re-employement on contract basis or the extention of services" such periods cannot be treated as the periods of service which could be added to their earlier periods of service for purpose of computing the pensionary benefits claimed by them. His contention to be precise was that the respondents when were reemployed by Government on their retirement at their superannuation age of 55 years, one of the terms of such re-employement since indicated that R. 313(b) of KCS Rules would become applicable to their re-employments the same term stood unaffected in its application to service of the respondents subsequently age of 58 years, the same having been saved by Government order dated 17-9-1984 by mentioning therein that there shall not be any change in the nature or character or conditions of service or re-employment on contract basis of the extension of service. It was, therefore, maintained that the respondents should be regarded as Government servants entitled to combine their pesionable service rendered by them prior to their attaining the age of 55 years with their service rendered subsequenlty up to the age of 58 years for claiming the pensionary benefits admissible under the KCS Rules. The contensions so advanced on behalf of the appellant-State, do not in our view, merit acceptance for the reasons which we shall presently set out. 7. Since R. 313(b) of the KCS Rules reffered to by the Additional Solicitor General is the rule which is mentioned in the appointment order of one of the respondents as that subject to which he had re-employed on contract basis, it could be excerpted in order to appreciate the sustainability or otherwise of the contentions based upon it: "313.(b) The pay to be allowed on re-employement is subject to the following conditions all of which must be satisfied:- (i) Pay on re-employement plus pension (including pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity or gratuity in lieu of pension) should not exceed the substantive pay in a permanent post but not pay in a temporary post drawn before retirement or the officiating pay in cases (Where the officiating post has been held) for not less than one year immediately prior to retirement. Note-1 to Note-5....................................... (a)............................................................. (b) (i)........................................................ Note-1 to Note-5....................................... (a)............................................................. (b) (i)........................................................ (ii) Where the Government servant has elected to retain the Scales of pay applicable to him as on 31st December, 1976 according to proviso to Rule 5 of the Karanataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1976, and the retirement takes place he held such scale the dearness allowance as on 1st April, 1973 sanctioned in G.O. No.FD 19 SRP (2) 73 dated 22nd June, 1973 and ordered as counting for pension in G.O. No. FD 2 SRP (3) 74, dated 29th March, 1974. (iii) Pay on re-employement plus pension (including pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity in lieu of pension) should not exceed the maximum of the time scale of the post in which the Government servant is re-employed. (iv) Special pay can be drawn in addition to pay on re-employement provided (1) the total of pension and pay on re-employment plus special pay is restricted to the substansive pay last drawn of officiating pay last drawn where such officiating pay has been drawn for not less one year immediately prior to retirement plus special pay last drawn and (2) the special pay is attached to the post in which he is re-employed." 8. It is order dated 17-9-1984 of the State Government which made the respondent retire from Government service after they attained the superannuation age of 58 years, by putting an end to their earlier retirements done at their superannuation of 55 years and gave them the benefit of continuity in their service up to the age of 58 years instead of their service on re-employement. If that be so, it is understandable, how their pay and other service benefits to be given to them could be fixed on the basis that they had retired at the age of 55 years and re-employed thereafter, resorting to the provisions of R. 313(b) above. The rule of course would have governed the conditions of service of the respondents had their re-employment service not been made the continued service of their earlier service by the Government orders, to which we have already adverted to. The rule of course would have governed the conditions of service of the respondents had their re-employment service not been made the continued service of their earlier service by the Government orders, to which we have already adverted to. In other words, if the respondents re-employment on contract basis had been allowed to continue before the attained the superannuation age of 58 years the said rule could have governed their service conditions and would have resulted in denying them the benefit of subsequent services put in by them between 55 years of age and 58 years of age for the purpose of obtaining pensionary benefits. It is obviously this situation which has made the KAT to rely in its order under appeal on Rules 283 and 284 the KCS Rules for its conclusion that the service put in earlier to their superannuation age of 58 years count for purposes of their superannuation pension i.e.,. service put in by the respondents before they had attained the earlier superannuation age of 55 years and re-employed on contract basis, and the period put in by them thereafter till they attained the superanuuation age of 58years subject to the other rules adverted to by it. 9. Thus, on examination of the orders of the Government relating to increase in the superannuation age of Government servants from 55 years to 58 years for their retirement from State Civil Service and their applicability to such of the Government servants who had retired on attaining the superannuation age of 55 years but were in re-employement on contract basis and further orders made by the Government in relation to applicability of those Government orders to the respondents and their orders on retirement specifically made on their completion of superannuation age of 58 years leaves no scope for use to interfere with the order under appeal made by the KAT. 10. In the result, we dismiss these appeals, but without costs. Appeals dismissed. For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 126