Judgment 1. The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16953/2011. Having failed before the learned Single Judge, they have come up in appeal. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows: Appellants 1 and 2 entered the service of the 2nd respondent, a duly constituted Cooperative Society as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, on 6.5.1981 and 27.7.1981 respectively. On completing their probation, they were regularized, continued in the service and retired from service on superannuation while working as Assistant Secretary and Head Clerk on 30.11.2010 and 31.12.2010 respectively. At the time of their entry in service, there was no provision for pension. With effect from 3.6.1993, Contributory Pension was introduced as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees’ Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pension Scheme’). Upon commencement of the Pension Scheme, they were enrolled on 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983 respectively, the dates on which their probation was satisfactorily completed. From the above respective dates onwards the 2nd respondent had been remitting their contribution to the 1st respondent, the Kerala State Cooperative Employees Pension Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pension Board’). While so, the 2nd respondent wrote Ext.P3 letter to the Secretary of the Pension Board requesting the Pension Board to reckon the period during which the appellants and seven other employees were on probation as qualifying service for computation of pension. The request was accompanied by a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent. The Pension Board in turn sent Ext.P4 letter dated 26.12.2007 asking the 2nd respondent to remit the pension contribution. Accordingly, by Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent remitted a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 31.7.2009. But, to the surprise of the appellants, on their retirement, when they got Exts.P1 to P2 pension orders, it was noticed that their period of probation was not counted for computing pension. Thereupon, they preferred Exts.P7 and P8 representation to the Secretary of the Pension Board requesting to reckon the period of their probation as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and also to refix the pension accordingly. Responding to Exts.P7 and P8, by Ext.P9 letter dated 18.5.2011 the request of the appellants was declined. Thereupon, they preferred Exts.P7 and P8 representation to the Secretary of the Pension Board requesting to reckon the period of their probation as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and also to refix the pension accordingly. Responding to Exts.P7 and P8, by Ext.P9 letter dated 18.5.2011 the request of the appellants was declined. Assailing Exts.P1, P2 and P9, with a contention that as per the Pension Scheme, the appellants are entitled to count their period of probation as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, the Writ Petition was filed seeking a writ to quash Exts.P1, P2 and P9 and also for a declaration that they are entitled to count their period of probation as qualifying service for pension and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Board to recomputed the pension accordingly. 2. The 1st respondent took up a defence that, the appellants were not on probation as on the date of the commencement of Pension Scheme and that they had enrolled in the Scheme only from 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983. Therefore, they are not entitled to count their period of probation as qualifying service for computing pension. The learned Single Judge, after upholding the defence, dismissed the Writ Petition. The contribution remitted as per Ext.P6 by the 2nd respondent was ordered to be refunded. Now this Writ Appeal. 3. We have heard Sri.S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Sri P.V.Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the records. 4. It is not disputed that the appellants enrolled in the Scheme only with effect from 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983 respectively upon the commencement of the Pension Scheme on 3.6.1993. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, by virtue of the 3rd proviso to paragraph 19(1)(a) of the Pension Scheme the appellants are entitled to count their period of probation as qualifying service for pension. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the appellants are governed by paragraph 19(1)(a) and that the appellants would not come within the purview of the 3rd proviso and therefore, they are not entitled to count their period of probating as qualifying service for pension. For a correct appraisal, a reading of para 19(1)(a) with its provisos would be relevant. “19. For a correct appraisal, a reading of para 19(1)(a) with its provisos would be relevant. “19. Qualifying Service:- Qualifying service for granting pension under the Scheme shall be- (1)(a) in the case of an employee who was in the service of a society on the date of application of this Scheme to that society the length of service commencing from the date of joining the Contributory Provident Fund: Provided that the qualifying service shall be limited to the period for which the employer’s contribution towards the Provident Fund has been fully paid by the Society in respect of that employee. Provided further that where the employee was a Subscriber to any pre-existing Provident Fund Scheme implemented in that Society and contribution made thereon has been transferred to the Pension Fund, such period will also qualify for pension. Provided also that an employee who was on probation and on whose behalf the Contributory Provident Fund contribution has not been remitted at the time of implementation of the scheme, such period of probation shall also qualify for pension, if proportionate employers’ contribution together with interest thereon has been credited to the Pension Fund. (emphasis supplied) Provided also that in the case of an employee who was in the service of a society coming under the purview of functional Registrars as on the date of this Scheme to that society, the length of service shall commence from the date from which the society resolves to contribute the amount towards Pension Fund in respect of each of the employees, at the time of enrollment in the Pension Scheme.” (rest omitted) A careful reading of para 19(1)(a) and the 3rd proviso quoted above would show that the benefit of the 3rd proviso would be applicable only to the employees who were on probation at the time of commencement of the Scheme and on whose behalf the contribution of the employer towards the Pension Scheme was remitted at the time of implementation of the Scheme or subsequently with interest. Admittedly, the probation of the appellants were declared with effect from 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983 from which dates the appellants enrolled in the Pension Scheme. Therefore, the appellants were not on probation at the time of implementation of the Scheme. Whereas the appellant were in the service of the Society on the date of the commencement of the Scheme. Admittedly, the probation of the appellants were declared with effect from 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983 from which dates the appellants enrolled in the Pension Scheme. Therefore, the appellants were not on probation at the time of implementation of the Scheme. Whereas the appellant were in the service of the Society on the date of the commencement of the Scheme. They had enrolled in the Pension Scheme with retrospective effect from 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983 respectively as stated earlier. The benefit of the 3rd proviso was declined to the appellants by the learned Single Judge on finding that the appellants were not on probation at the time of the implementation of the Scheme. Referring to the 3rd proviso, the learned Single Judge found that the 3rd proviso is applicable only to those who were on probation at the time of implementation of the Scheme. In concluding so, the learned Single Judge had also relied upon another decision of a learned Single Judge in Sukumaran, N. v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board. Tvm and another (2010(4) KHC 859). We find no error committed by the learned Single Judge so as to be rectified in appeal. We, on an anxious consideration, hold that the employees of the Co-operative Society, who were on probation before the introduction of the Pension Scheme, are not entitled to count their period of probation to count the qualifying service for pension. Such persons and entitled to count the qualifying service for pension only from the date on which they enrolled in the pension scheme. Whereas in the case of employees, who were on probation as on the date of commencement of the Scheme, are entitled to count the period of probation to reckon the qualifying service for pension in the event the employer had remitted the contribution covering the period of probation. Therefore, we find that the appeal is devoid of merits. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.