Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. Petitioner was appointed in the service of the Travancore Devaswom Board on 16.9.1988 as Peon. On the same day, he was posted as personal Peon-cum-Driver of the then President of the Travancore Devaswom Board. He was relieved on 1.10.1992 and was transferred and posted to the office of the Executive Engineer, Kottayam. Since then, the petitioner was working as Driver in the office of the Executive Engineer, Kottayam. 2. The petitioner’s date of birth is 1.4.1942. He was due to retire from service on 31.3.1997 on attaining the age of 55 Years. The petitioner would not be eligible for minimum pension, if he retires on 31.3.1997. Hence, he submitted an application before the first respondent – Board for extension of service for a period of two years. The Board, after considering the representation of the petitioner, by proceedings dated 7.10.1996 ordered extension of service by one year. Thereafter, a request was made by the petitioner for further extension of service by one year, which was rejected by the Board. 3. The petitioner on the basis of the permission continued in service for another year. The extension of service was granted in order to enable the petitioner to complete 10 years of service. In Ext.P5 order, passed by the Board, it is stated that “you are eligible for minimum pension with the service already put in, with the extension of one year granted as per this office proceedings of even No. dated 7.10.96. Hence your request dated 27.1.98 for further extension of service is rejected”. 4. After retiring from service, the petitioner applied for pension. Then it was informed by the Board that the petitioner is not entitled to get pension. Ext.P6 is the order, In Ext.P6 what is stated is that the Finance and Accounts Officer has recommended not to grant pension and on that basis the request for pension was rejected. It is challenging Ext.P6 that this Original Petition is filed. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the petitioner was in service and that he was given extension of service for one year, so as enable him to get minimum pension. It is challenging Ext.P6 that this Original Petition is filed. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the petitioner was in service and that he was given extension of service for one year, so as enable him to get minimum pension. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Deputy Examiner Local Fund Accounts has raised objection against the order of the Board in granting pension by taking into account the period of extended service. It is further seen that the petitioner has produced Ext.P7, which is an order G.O.(P) No.1851/99/Fin dated 18.9.1999. 6. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by Ext.P5 order, it can be seen that the petitioner was granted extension of service, so that he will be entitled to pension. Learned counsel submitted that this is according to Rule 11, Chapter II of Part III of Kerala Service Rules. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board submitted that the Audit has raised objection and hence, pension cannot be granted. Rule 11 of chapter II of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules states as follows: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 10, the Government may (1) declare that any specified kind of service rendered shall quality for pension; and (2) in individual cases, and subject to such conditions as they may think fit to impose in each case, allow service rendered by an employee to count for pension”. It is admitted that the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules are made applicable to the Travancore Devaswom Board. Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the Travancore Devaswom Board in which a representation filed by the petitioner was considered. It is dated 7.10.1996. The operative portion of the proceedings is as follows: “The board has considered his request and is pleased to order the extension of his service by one year in continuation from 1.4.97 for enabling him to get pension”. When the petitioner wanted extension of one more year. Ext.P5 communication was given by the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board to the petitioner. It is stated that since already the petitioner was eligible for minimum pension, it was not necessary to give extension of another year. When the petitioner wanted extension of one more year. Ext.P5 communication was given by the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board to the petitioner. It is stated that since already the petitioner was eligible for minimum pension, it was not necessary to give extension of another year. But in Ext.P6 the request for payment of pensionary dues was rejected on the ground that the Finance and Accounts Officer has objected. We feel that in the light of Exts.P4 and P5, a power has been exercised by the Travancore Devaswom Board under Rule 11, Chapter II of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. It was submitted that since the petitioner’s entry in the service was not in usual course, he is not entitled to any benefit. According to us, the Devaswom Board cannot raise such a contention. It is true that the petitioner having been appointed and asked to work for one more year, the Board cannot now turn round and say that the petitioner is not entitled to pension inspite of his working for 10 years. 9. During the pendency of the Original petition, the petitioner died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 5. Additional second petitioner is his wife. We direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to calculate the amount of pension payable to the petitioner and give the pension till his death and after his death, if his wife is eligible to family pension, the Board can consider this also. Original petition is disposed of as above.