Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. Whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 14358 of 1993 (Gopalan V. State of Kerala 1999 (1) KLT 850) lays down correct law in directing to compute the period of part-time contingent service also for the purpose of grade promotion in the last grade service is the question to be answered in W.A. No. 46 of 2000. The impugned judgment in W.A. No. 910 of 2001 only directed the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioners therein also taking note of the judgment in O.P. No. 14358 of 1993. Petitioners in O.P. No.55 of 2001 also want to benefit of the above judgment in O.P. No. 14358 of 1993. Therefore, we will consider the facts in W.A. No.46 of 2001 where the judgment in O.P. No.14358 is challenged. Petitioners therein were last grade servants who retired from service from the Government. They entered into the service as part-time sweepers with effect from various dates and later became full-time employees. As per the rules, 50% of their part-time contingent service is counted as qualifying service for pension and the said service is not counted for any other purpose. They filed a representation to count the part-time contingent service for the benefit of grade promotion in accordance with IVth and Vth Pay Commission reports. The learned Judge directed that period of part-time contingent service also should be counted for grade promotion (See: Gopalan v. State of Kerala (1999 (1) KLT 850). Learned Single Judge quoted the Government order G.O. (P) No. 515/85/Fin. Dated 16-9-1985 on the basis of the recommendation of the IV Pay Commission which is as follows: “(C) Time-bound Grade promotion: 10. After reviewing the existing scheme of time bound/non-cadre promotion, the Commissioner has made a number of recommendations for liberalization. Government accepted the recommendations and order as follows: (i) Employees in the revised scales of pay ranging from Rs.550-800 to Rs.1150-2270 will be allowed promotion to higher grade on completion of 10 years of service in the first higher grade or a total service of 20 years in the two grades together, whichever is earlier.” From the above, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that “all the employees in the service of the Government could get grade promotion on completion of ten years or twenty years respectively” (See: para 2 of the judgment). It is the contention of the State that such a conclusion is not correct. 2. For understanding the rival contentions, we may consider the history of granting grade promotions. Government, by G.O. (Ms.) No. 439/79/GAD dated 1-8-1979, ordered grade promotions for the first time to non-gazetted officers without adequate promotional avenues and who are stagnated in the entry grade for years together. The above order reads as follows: “Government are pleased to order that all the non-gazetted officers who remain in the entry grade without a promotion in the normal course shall be allowed the benefit of a higher grade on completion of 13 years of service in the entry grade. This order will take effect from 1-7-1979.” By G.O.(P) No.901/79(116)/Fin. Dated 3-10-1979, same benefits were extended to gazetted offices also. By G.O.(P) No. 1041/79(142)/Fin. dated 27-11-1979, Government issued detailed instructions for getting the above benefit. The relevant portion for the purpose of this case is as follows: “(i) The term ‘entry grade’ shall be defined as the grade or category of post to which an employee is initially appointed in Government service by direct recruitment, by the competent authority. (ii) The service put in in the entry grade or post which will count for normal increments in that grade (scale of pay) shall be treated as qualifying service for purposes of computing the 13 years’ period for granting the higher grade. XX XX XX XX (xi) For each category, the higher grade to be allowed will be specified by Government.” List of entry posts (not exhaustive) with scales of pay and higher grade scales of pay to be granted after completion of 13 years were also mentioned as Annexure to the Government order. Part-time contingent employees or their grades were not mentioned in the Government order. By notification G.O.(P) No.399/80/(206)/Fin. dated 21-6-1980, Government gave a further benefit to last grade employees to count their full-time contingent service for computing 13 years service for calculating the benefit. Part-time contingent employees or their grades were not mentioned in the Government order. By notification G.O.(P) No.399/80/(206)/Fin. dated 21-6-1980, Government gave a further benefit to last grade employees to count their full-time contingent service for computing 13 years service for calculating the benefit. In the above notification, it is stated as follows: “In the case of last grade employees, their full time service in the various categories of last grade service (both in the regular service and full time contingency service) will be reckoned for computing the 13 years service, for granting higher grade, in terms of the Government orders cited.” Therefore, only full-time contingent service was allowed to be taken into account while calculating the service in the entry grade for last grade service. Government Order dated 16-9-1985 is only an amendment of the earlier order dated 27-11-1979 giving further relaxation and benefits to employees. By notification G.O. (P) No.480/89/fin. dated 1-11-1989, a third grade promotion on completion of 25 years of service was also granted to certain cadres of stagnated employees. The rules extending grade promotions after pay commission reports and various Government orders were consolidated in Circular No.54/92/(138)/Fin, dated 6-11-1992. 3. The relevant Government orders show that grade promotions were granted to regular employees who were not getting any promotion in the entry grade and stagnated in their posts. Clauses 10(i) of 1985 Government order only deals with granting of grade promotion to those who were in the revised scale of pay of Rs.550-800 to Rs.1150/2270. Petitioners were not on such grade when they were part-time contingent employees and, therefore, they will he entitled to the benefit of grade promotion only after they got into that scale. However, in view of the Government Order dated 21-6-1980 for counting the number of years of service in the last grade service, their full-time contingent service can be counted. Further, when part-time contingent employees are absorbed as full-time contingent employees, their grade is changed. So, there is no stagnation. They will get the scale of pay and the amount mentioned in the order only when they are absorbed in the full-time service and even though part-time contingent service is also service and that is countable for certain purposes as mentioned in the rules. Grade promotion is provided only when an employee started his service in the pay mentioned in the respective orders. Grade promotion is provided only when an employee started his service in the pay mentioned in the respective orders. In the above circumstances, the direction of the learned Single Judge to reckon part-time contingent service rendered by the petitioners for the purpose of granting grade promotion is not correct and hence the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.A. No.46 of 2000 (1999) (1) KLT 850) is reversed. W.A. No.46 of 2000 filed by the State is allowed. However, their full-time contingent service can be counted for grade promotion in view of Government order dated 21-6-1980. That is a concession granted. Merely because such a concession was given on the basis of representation, taking into account the full-time contingent service for grade promotion, it cannot be stated that Government is bound to count part-time contingent service also for counting the period of service for the purpose of grade promotion. However, if benefits were already given considering the fact that the petitioners were superannuated last grade employees, that should not be recovered. The representation directed to be considered by the Government in the impugned judgment in W.A. No.910 of 2001 shall be considered accordingly taking into account the observations in this judgment. Thus W.A. No.910 of 2001 is disposed of. 4. Petitioners in O.P. No.55 of 2001 want only time-bound promotion in view of the decision reported in 1999 (1) KLT 850 (O.P. No. 14358 of 1993). Their part-time contingent service period cannot be counted for the purpose of grade promotion. Therefore, O.P. No. 55 of 2001 is dismissed. W.A. No.46 of 2001 is disposed of.