JUDGMENT : P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. 1. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether, the respondent herein, who was a provisional employee in the service of the appellants, is entitled to pensionary benefits. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The respondent herein, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20727 of 2004 from which this writ appeal arises, was appointed as IInd Grade Draftsman on a provisional basis by Ext.P1 order dated 6.10.1982 issued by the Executive Engineer, Command Area Development Authority Division, Thrissur and posted in the office of the fourth appellant. The appointment of the respondent was purely on a provisional basis, for a period of 180 days from the date of joining duty or till regular hands become available, which ever is earlier. It was also stipulated in Ext.P1 order that the appointment is liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the respondent joined duty on 20.10.1982. She continued in service beyond the period of 180 days for which she was appointed. 3. While the respondent was in service, a Full Bench of this Court held in Umayammal v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 829) that provisional or temporary employees working in Government departments, Government companies, statutory corporations and local bodies, except employees working in Government departments discharging inalienable sovereign functions, are entitled to the protection of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that their services can be terminated, except for giving place to regular hands recruited by the Kerala Public Service Commission, only in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Full Bench also observed that notwithstanding the provisions contained in section 25-J of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it may be possible for the Government to exclude the operation of Chapter V- A of the Act, by a positive legislative provision. 4. The Government accordingly promulgated Ordinance No.5 of 1983 on 8.2.1983 introducing section 4 in the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 to exclude the operation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the matter of appointment of any person to any public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala. The respondent herein thereupon filed O.P.No.2570 of 1983 in this Court challenging the validity of Ordinance 5 of 1983. The respondent herein thereupon filed O.P.No.2570 of 1983 in this Court challenging the validity of Ordinance 5 of 1983. The validity of Ordinance 5 of 1983 was upheld by this Court in O.P.No.1119 of 1983 and connected cases. Consequently, by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 4.4.1983, O.P. No.2570 of 1983 was dismissed. However on mention being made before the learned single Judge that Ordinance 5 of 1983 had lapsed since it was not replaced by an Act of the legislature, though the Kerala Legislative Assembly was in session from 25.2.1983 to 30.3.1983, even while dismissing O.P.No.2570 of 1983, the learned single Judge observed that if the Ordinance lapses and nothing else is substituted in its place, the rights of parties will be governed by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Umayammal v. State of Kerala (supra). The Government thereafter promulgated Ordinance 16 of 1983, followed by Ordinance 36 of 1983. Ordinance 36 of 1983 was replaced by an Act of the State Legislature whereby the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 was amended with effect from 1.10.1981 by inserting section 4, which reads as follows: "4. Act and rules thereunder to apply to certain persons notwithstanding anything in the Industrial Disputes Act or any other law:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter V-A or in any other provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, the appointment of any person to any pubic service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala and the conditions of service (including termination of service) of any person appointed to any such service or post shall be governed by the provisions of this Act and the Rules made or deemed to have been made there under." 5. However, the respondent herein continued in service and her service was not terminated. When the respondent was appointed on a provisional basis as IInd Grade Draftsman and posted in the office of the fourth respondent, the Command Area Development Authority was part of the Irrigation department. Later, with the enactment of the Kerala Command Areas Development Act, 1986, it was converted into an autonomous body. When the respondent was appointed on a provisional basis as IInd Grade Draftsman and posted in the office of the fourth respondent, the Command Area Development Authority was part of the Irrigation department. Later, with the enactment of the Kerala Command Areas Development Act, 1986, it was converted into an autonomous body. Shortly thereafter, some among the provisional employees of Command Area Development Authority filed O.P.Nos.1576 of 1992 and 11767 of 1994 in this Court inter-alia seeking regularisation in service. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 7.1.1998, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Government to take a final decision in the matter within six months from the date of the judgment. The Government accordingly considered the request made by the provisional employees for regularisation in service and passed Ext.P7 order dated 28.11.2000 rejecting their request. The Government also directed the Administrator of the Command Area Development Authority to relieve the ten employees who had moved this Court. The Government also directed that the services of 11 employees including the respondent herein who had not moved this Court or the Government claiming regularisation, be terminated with immediate effect. The respondent thereupon filed O.P.No.34157 of 2000 in this Court, along with Smt.Shailaja Devi, another provisional employee working as IInd Grade Draftsman in the very same office, whose service was also ordered to be terminated by Ext.P7 order. 6. O.P. No. 34157 of 2007 was filed on 5.12.2000. In that original petition, the petitioners therein had filed C.M.P.No.58357 of 2000 for an order directing the respondents therein to maintain the status quo as on 20.11.2000 in the matter of their employment, pending disposal of the original petition. An interim order directing the status quo to be maintained for a period of two months was initially passed on 6.12.2000. The said order was periodically extended and ultimately by order passed on 23.7.2001, the interim order directing maintenance of the status quo as on 20.11.2000, in the matter of employment of the petitioners therein, was extended until further orders. While O.P.No.34157 of 2000 was pending, the respondent herein attained the age of superannuation and she was relieved from service by issuing Ext.P9 proceedings. While O.P.No.34157 of 2000 was pending, the respondent herein attained the age of superannuation and she was relieved from service by issuing Ext.P9 proceedings. Shortly before attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent filed a representation before the Government requesting that her service may be treated as regular as a special case for the purpose of sanctioning of pension and pensionary benefits may be sanctioned to her taking into account the service of 20 years and 6 months in the department. She later filed another representation dated 6.1.2003 claiming the same relief. When no action was taken on the said representations, she filed W.P.(C) No.38202 of 2003 in this Court. By Ext.P11 judgment delivered on 4.12.2003, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the State Government to consider the representation dated 6.1.2003 and pass orders thereon within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Government thereafter considered the said representation and passed Ext.P12 order dated 16.2.2004, rejecting the respondent's claim for grant of pensionary benefits. W.P.(C) No.20727 of 2004 was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P12 order and seeking the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the disposal leading to issuance of Exhibit P12. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ order or direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner separately as a special case and sanction her eligible pension and other pensionary benefits. 7. O.P.No.34157 of 2000 filed by the respondent and another challenging Ext.P7 order directing termination of their services came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court on 8.10.2007. In view of the fact that the petitioners had attained the age of superannuation, the said original petition was closed without prejudice to their right to agitate such questions as are referable to their continued discharge of duties and responsibilities in service. W.P.(C) No.20727 of 2004 from which this writ appeal arises, thereafter came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court on 26.11.2008. W.P.(C) No.20727 of 2004 from which this writ appeal arises, thereafter came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court on 26.11.2008. In view of the fact that the appellants herein had not filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition notwithstanding the specific direction issued in that regard on 29.10.2008, the learned single Judge quashed Ext.P12 and directed the Government to grant ex-gratia pension to the writ petitioner with effect from the date of termination. The learned single Judge also directed that needful in the matter shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and that in the event of any delay, the writ petitioner will be entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the arrears of pension and the officers responsible for the delay, will be personally liable for the same. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellants herein filed R.P.No.1 of 2009. By order passed on 30.1.2009, the review petition was disposed of with the observation that the order sought to be reviewed was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances and that no principle of law has been laid down to be followed in other cases. The instant writ appeal was thereafter filed on 2.3.2009, canvassing the correctness of the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge on 26.11.2008 in W.P.(C) No.20727 of 2004 and the order passed on 30.1.2009 in R.P. No.1 of 2009. 8. When this writ appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 22.1.2010, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Balakrishna Pillai v. Assistant Executive Engineer ( 1996 (2) KLT 406 ) that provisional employees who have put in more than 10 years of service are not entitled to pensionary benefits and therefore the mere fact that the respondent had continued in service for a long number of years will not entitle her to pensionary benefits. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in O.P.No.19571 of 2002 and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2432 of 2007, that in similar circumstances this Court has directed grant of ex-gratia pension to similarly placed employees. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in O.P.No.19571 of 2002 and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2432 of 2007, that in similar circumstances this Court has directed grant of ex-gratia pension to similarly placed employees. The Division Bench did not agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2432 of 2007 and passed an order, referring the writ appeal for hearing by a Full Bench of this Court. The writ appeal has thus come up before us, for hearing. 9. We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to statutory pension or ex-gratia pension based on the provisional service rendered by her for a period of 20 years and 6 months notwithstanding the fact that such service was not rendered as a regular employee of the Government/Command Area Development Authority. The fact that the respondent was appointed only on a provisional basis for a period of 180 days from the date of joining duty or till a regular hand becomes available, which ever is earlier, is not in dispute. It was stipulated in Ext.P1 order of appointment that the appointment is purely provisional and is liable to be terminated at any time. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order of appointment, the respondent joined duty on 20.10.1982 and till Ext.P7 order was passed she continued in service without interruption. When by Ext.P7, the Government directed termination of the services of the respondent and 10 other employees, the respondent and another filed O.P.No.34157 of 2007 in this Court wherein an order directing maintenance of the status quo as on 20.11.2000 was passed and that order continued to be in force till O.P.No.34157 of 2007 was disposed of on 8.10.2007. Meanwhile, the respondent who was born on 12.5.1948 attained the age of 55 years on 11.5.2003 and was relieved from service on 31.5.2003. While in service, she did not claim regularisation in service till Ext.P7 order was passed directing termination of her service. The service rendered by the respondent was thus not as a regular employee of the Government or the Command Area Development Authority. While in service, she did not claim regularisation in service till Ext.P7 order was passed directing termination of her service. The service rendered by the respondent was thus not as a regular employee of the Government or the Command Area Development Authority. The learned single Judge however directed grant of ex-gratia pension on the short ground that as the respondent had served the Government for 21 years and had become ineligible to join any other service, it is just and equitable that she is given at least ex-gratia pension. 10. The case set out by the respondent in the writ petition is that her continuance in service for a long period would prove that she was not appointed to tide over an emergency and therefore, her service should be deemed to have been regular for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. It is also contended that she was sanctioned increments, granted eligible leave including leave without allowances that her status was that of a regular employee and therefore, denial of pensionary benefits is arbitrary and discriminatory. As stated earlier, the petitioner did not, for a long time after her appointment on a provisional basis, seek regularization in service. She sought regularization in service for the first time by filing W.P.(C) No.34157 of 2000 and on the strength of the interim order passed therein, she continued in service as a provisional employee till she attained the age of superannuation. In Balakrishna Pillai v. Assistant Executive Engineer (supra) a learned single Judge of this Court considered the question whether provisional employees appointed under rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the KS&SSR" for short) are entitled to pensionary benefits including monthly pension, commuted value of pension and death-cum-gratuity on attaining the age of 55 years, if they have more than ten years of provisional service to their credit. 11. The petitioner in one of writ petitions disposed of by the said decision, namely in O.P.No.16656 of 1994, an ex-serviceman, was appointed as Motor Mechanic in the Ground Water Department on 25.5.1982 through the Employment Exchange under rule 9(a)(i) of the KS&SSR for a period of 179 days. 11. The petitioner in one of writ petitions disposed of by the said decision, namely in O.P.No.16656 of 1994, an ex-serviceman, was appointed as Motor Mechanic in the Ground Water Department on 25.5.1982 through the Employment Exchange under rule 9(a)(i) of the KS&SSR for a period of 179 days. Apprehending that his service will be terminated on expiry of the period of 179 days for which he was appointed, he filed O.P.No.8883 of 1982 in this Court seeking the benefit of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. O.P.No.8883 of 1982 was disposed of by judgment delivered on 15.11.1982 in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Umayammal v. State of Kerala (supra) with a direction that the termination of his provisional service will have to be in accordance with Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, except for the purpose of accommodating candidates advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission. After O.P.No.8883 of 1982 was disposed of by judgment delivered on 15.11.1982, the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 was amended by incorporating section 4 therein. In view of the amendment, the service of the petitioner in O.P.No.8883 of 1982 could have been terminated, but he continued in service till 31.7.1994, when on attaining the age of 55 years, he was relieved from service. He had in the meanwhile again approached this Court by filing O.P.No.9324 of 1986 which was disposed of on 8.7.1991 recording the submission made on behalf of the respondents therein that they had no intention to terminate his service. This Court also directed the competent authority to consider his claim for regularization. His claim for regularization in service was not granted. After he attained the age of superannuation and was relieved from service, he filed O.P.No.16656 of 1994 in this Court seeking regularization in service and grant of pensionary benefits for the provisional service of more than 12 years rendered by him during the period from 25.5.1982 to 31.7.1994. 12. The petitioners in O.P.No.1303 of 1995, which was also disposed of by the decision in Balakrishna Pillai v. Assistant Executive Engineer (supra), who were also ex-servicemen, were appointed under rule 9 (a)(i) of Part II of the KS&SSR through the Employment Exchange on 11.10.1976 and 30.5.1977 respectively as Fitter Grade II in the Kerala State Water Transport Department. 12. The petitioners in O.P.No.1303 of 1995, which was also disposed of by the decision in Balakrishna Pillai v. Assistant Executive Engineer (supra), who were also ex-servicemen, were appointed under rule 9 (a)(i) of Part II of the KS&SSR through the Employment Exchange on 11.10.1976 and 30.5.1977 respectively as Fitter Grade II in the Kerala State Water Transport Department. They were relieved from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.2.1992 and 31.7.1994 respectively. They had earlier filed O.P.No.10847 of 1991 in this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider their claims for regularization in service, which were later rejected. They thereupon moved this Court by filing O.P.No.1303 of 1995 challenging the orders rejecting their requests for regularization in service and seeking regularization in service and pensionary benefits. O.P.Nos.16656 of 1994 and 1303 of 1995 were heard and dismissed by the decision in Balakrishna Pillai v. Assistant Executive Engineer (supra), on the ground that persons appointed under rule 9(a)(i) of Part I of the KS&SSR are not entitled to pensionary benefits. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:- "8. A Government employee on retirement on superannuation is entitled to the pensionary benefits in terms of the Rules contained in Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. The general scope and applicability of the Kerala Service Rules is dealt with in R.1, 2 and 3 of Part I of that Rules. The note added to R.3 Part I KSR with effect from 3.2.1987, reads as follows:- "Note:- The rules as a whole shall not apply to the persons appointed to the service of the Government temporarily under R.9 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, except to the extent specified by the Government." In terms of this provision, a temporary appointee cannot claim pension unless Government specify in that behalf. The counsel for the petitioner could not bring to my notice any specific order conferring the benefit of pension to temporary employees appointed under R.9 mentioned in the said note. At the same time, R.4 of Part III KSR concerning pension specifically provides that no claim to pension is admitted when an employee is appointed for limited time only. The petitioner's appointment was for a limited time namely, 180 days. He happened to be continued in service on the strength of Ext.P1 judgment. At the same time, R.4 of Part III KSR concerning pension specifically provides that no claim to pension is admitted when an employee is appointed for limited time only. The petitioner's appointment was for a limited time namely, 180 days. He happened to be continued in service on the strength of Ext.P1 judgment. In spite of Ext.P1 judgment, also in terms of Section 4 of the Public Service Act introduced later, the petitioner's service could have been terminated, but it was not done. So in terms of R.4(a) of Part III KSR, as the petitioner was appointed for a limited term only, he cannot claim pension, even through he had continued beyond that time. As per Clause (c) of R.4, when a person is employed temporarily on monthly wages also claim for pension cannot be admitted. The petitioner was admittedly a temporary person paid on monthly basis. Thus in terms of that clause as well, the petitioner's claim is inadmissible. Thus, there is specific provision excluding temporary appointees from the purview of Pension Rules. Over and above that, the note under R.3 Part I KSR also exclude temporary employees from the purview of the application of the Kerala Service Rules. This is except to the extension specified by the Government. Government have not made any specification. On the other hand, the provisions in Rule 4 in Part III of the KSR are the specification excluding them from the purview of the Pension Rules. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot get a direction for grant of retirement benefits in the light of the specific provisions contained in KSR. The decisions cited by the petitioner cannot be relied on to grant him any pension considering his long temporary service. 13. The correctness of the decision of the learned single judge in Balakrishna Pillai v. Assistant Executive Engineer (supra) was canvassed before the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999. Before the Division Bench, the appellants contended that even without regularization in service, based on the provisional service rendered by them, they are eligible for pensionary benefits. They placed reliance on G.O.(P)No.543/89/Fin. dated 20.11.1989 and G.O.(P) No. 2357/99/Fin., dated 25.11.1999, which read as follows:- FINANCE (PENSION-B) DEPARTMENT G.O(P)543/89/Fin. Dated, Trivandrum, 20th November, 1989. Abstract:- Pension - Reckoning of provisional service for pensionary benefits - Orders issued. Read:- 1. G.O.(P)495/66/Fin., dated 4th November 1966. 2. They placed reliance on G.O.(P)No.543/89/Fin. dated 20.11.1989 and G.O.(P) No. 2357/99/Fin., dated 25.11.1999, which read as follows:- FINANCE (PENSION-B) DEPARTMENT G.O(P)543/89/Fin. Dated, Trivandrum, 20th November, 1989. Abstract:- Pension - Reckoning of provisional service for pensionary benefits - Orders issued. Read:- 1. G.O.(P)495/66/Fin., dated 4th November 1966. 2. Letter No.PRI/G1/6-118/85-86/45, dated 11th July 1985 from the Accountant General (A & E), Kerala. ORDER Government have been receiving representations from various organisations and individuals for counting provisional service also as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. At present the rules are not specific as to count provisional service as qualifying service. Audit has also raised certain observations and have sought Government's clarifications on the question of counting provisional service for pension. Accordingly, after considering the various aspects of the matter, Government are pleased to order that the provisional service of an employee, with or without break, will be reckoned for qualifying service for pensionary benefits. This order will take effect from the date of this order. Cases already settled otherwise will not be re-opened. Necessary amendments to relevant rules in Kerala Service Rules Part III, will be issued separately. By Order of the Governor, P.S.DHARMARAJAN, Additional Secretary ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FINANCE (PENSION-B) DEPARTMENT G.O(P)2357/99/Fin. Dated, Trivandrum, 25th November, 1999. Abstract:- Pension - Reckoning of provisional service - Further Clarification - Orders issued. Read:- 1. G.O.(P)No.543/89/Fin., dated 20.11.1989 2. G.O(P)No.540/94/Fin. dated 30.9.1994 3. G.O.(P)No.3116/98/Fin., dated 15.12.1998 4. Letter No.KWA/JB/E1-5413/99 dated 29.3.1999 from Kerala Water Authority addressed to Secretary, Irrigation Department. ORDER In the Government Order read as first paper above, orders were issued to reckon the provisional service as Qualifying Service for pensionary benefit from the date of order. It was inter-alia ordered that past cases settled would not be re-opened. Subsequently, the above orders were cancelled vide orders read as 3rd paper above consequent on the issuance of G.O., cited 2nd. Now it has come to the notice of Government that certain inconsistencies pertaining to the effective date of orders for reckoning the provisional service for pensionary benefits still persists as clarification sought in the reference cited 4th read. 2. Subsequently, the above orders were cancelled vide orders read as 3rd paper above consequent on the issuance of G.O., cited 2nd. Now it has come to the notice of Government that certain inconsistencies pertaining to the effective date of orders for reckoning the provisional service for pensionary benefits still persists as clarification sought in the reference cited 4th read. 2. Government have examined the case in detail and are pleased to clarify that the provisional service with or without break rendered by the employees up to 30.9.1994 which qualifies for earning increments in terms of Government Decision No.2 under Rule 33 Part I, Kerala Service Rules will be reckoned as Qualifying Service for pension irrespective of dates of retirement after 20.11.1989. The provisional service rendered on or after 1.10.1994 will not be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. The cases of retirement from service during the period from 1.10.1994 to 15.12.1998 and pensionary claims already sanctioned will not be re-opened. 3. The Government Order read as 1st and 3rd paper above stands clarified and modified to the above extent. By order of the Governor, DR. A.K. DUBEY, Secretary (Finance - Expenditure). 14. Interpreting the aforesaid Government orders, the Division Bench of this Court held in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999 that they apply only to regular employees, who were initially appointed on a provisional basis, but were later regularised in service, enabling them to count the previous provisional service which they had rendered up to 30.9.1994 as service qualifying for pension. The Division Bench also considered the provisions contained in rules 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules and rules 9, 11 and 57 of Part III thereof and held that in terms of the existing rules and orders the appellants are ineligible for pension. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999, which are relevant are extracted below:- "4. Though the claim raised in W.A.No.1381/96 is for regularisation of service and to grant all consequential benefits, at the time of hearing, the arguments were confined to the relief of regularisation of service of the appellant for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits. In W.A.No.1975/99, the relief sought itself is for the regularisation of the service of the appellants, at least for the limited purpose of granting pensionary benefits. In W.A.No.1975/99, the relief sought itself is for the regularisation of the service of the appellants, at least for the limited purpose of granting pensionary benefits. Therefore, it may be safely assumed that the appellants in both the cases have understood that they will be entitled to get pensionary benefits if only their services are regularised. In other words, they felt that they will not be eligible for pensionary benefits for their provisional service. But at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that even without regularisation, on the basis of the provisional service rendered by them, they are eligible for pension. For the said purpose, reliance was placed on G.O. (P) No.543/89/Fin. dated 20.11.1989. In the said order, it is stated: Government have been receiving representations from various organisations and individuals for counting provisional service also as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. At present the rules are not specific as to count provisional service as qualifying service. Thereafter, the Government said: Accordingly, after considering the various aspects of the matter, Government are pleased to order that the provisional service of an employee, with or without break, will be reckoned for qualifying service for pensionary benefits. 5. A reading of the said order which is produced as Annexure A1 along with CMP.No.6312/2000 in W.A.No.1975/1999 will show that the said order is meant to benefit the Government employees who are in regular service by adding their provisional service also for the purpose of computing pension. Again, reference was made to G.O.(P)No.3116/98/Fin., dated 15.12.1998 by which the above said Annexure A1 order was cancelled. Again the Government have issued G.O.(P)No.2357/99/Fin., dated 25.11.1999 which is produced as Annexure I along with C.M.P.No.9196/2001 in W.A.No.1381/1996 permitting to count provisional service for pension subject to certain conditions. But, a reading of the order will definitely show that the same applies only to existing regular employees enabling them to count previous provisional service. 6. Apart from the Government Orders, the learned counsel took us through Rules 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Part I K.S.R., and also Rules 9, 11 and 57 of Part III thereof. On the basis of the said Rules, the learned counsel persuaded us to take the view that grant of pension to persons having only provisional service is not ruled out under the Rules. We find it difficult to agree with the said proposition. On the basis of the said Rules, the learned counsel persuaded us to take the view that grant of pension to persons having only provisional service is not ruled out under the Rules. We find it difficult to agree with the said proposition. Pension is a substantial benefit as far as an employee is concerned. The right to get the same cannot rest on vague interpretations of the Rules to the effect that grant of pension for provisional service is not excluded. We are of the view that if the Government wanted to give pension to provisional employees who completed more than ten years, they would have definitely introduced appropriate amendments to the Kerala Service Rules providing for it. But, on the contrary, the views of the Government are clear from the various Annexures produced in these Appeals. Even the counting of provisional service for grant of pension to regular employees is permitted subject to certain restrictions. If provisional service was pensionable service, there was no necessity to issue such orders contained in the Annexures. Therefore, we are of the view that in terms of the existing Rules and Orders, the appellants are ineligible for pension." 15. The Division Bench thereafter proceeded to examine rule 7 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, which empowers the Government to relax the Rules for dealing with a case in a just and equitable manner and rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules which enables the Government to declare that any kind of service rendered shall qualify for pension and directed as follows:- "7. But, we notice that Rule 7 of Part I K.S.R., enables the Government to relax any of the Rules for dealing with a case in a just and equitable manner. The said Rule reads as follows:- "Where Government are satisfied that the operation of any rule under these Rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, the Government may dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as they may consider necessary for dealing with the cases in a just and equitable manner." Similarly, rule 11 of Part III K.S.R., also enables the Government to declare that any kind of service rendered shall qualify for pension. The said Rules reads as follows:- "11. The said Rules reads as follows:- "11. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 10, the Government may, (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. 8. In the cases at hand, all the appellants are Ex-servicemen. They completed more than ten years service as provisional employees and retired from service. The service rendered by a provisional employee and that of a regular employee do not normally differ in its quality and content, especially in such posts, like Mechanic or Fitter occupied by the appellants. If the Government had appointed a regular hand to man those posts, such employees would have been eligible for pension. These persons, we are told were discharging their functions satisfactorily throughout their service. But because of their nature or appointment, they are being denied pension. This Court cannot grant them any relief in the absence of any Rules. We are bound by the principle that relief can be granted only if there is a right, but the Government are armed with sufficient powers under the Rules to deal with their case appropriately. A democratically elected Government, sensitive to the grievances of the citizens, may redress the grievance of the appellants. So, the Government may consider the claim of the appellants for pensionary benefits in relaxation of the Rules. The counsel also brought to our notice the scheme for ex-gratia pension introduced by the Government as per G.O.(P) No.1851/99/Fin. dated 18.9.1999 which is produced as Annexure II along with CMP No.9196/2001 in W.A.No.1381/96 to pay pension to those who are otherwise ineligible. They also pointed out the pension scheme introduced for the benefit of the personal staff of the Ministers. So, we direct the Government to take a decision on the claim of the appellants for pensionary benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, uninfluenced by the stand taken by it earlier. We may not be taken as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the case binding the hands of the Government in taking an independent decision" 16. We may not be taken as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the case binding the hands of the Government in taking an independent decision" 16. In the decision in O.P.No.19571 of 2002, which was relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, a learned single Judge of this Court directed grant of ex-gratia pension to the petitioner on the ground that the service rendered by a provisional employee and by a regular employee do not normally differ in its quality and content. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in A.P. Sreevasthava v. Union of India and others, 1995 (6) SCC 227 to hold that in the case of employees continuing in provisional service till superannuation, steps should be taken by the Government to regularise them in service. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2432 of 2007 to direct grant of ex-gratia pension on the ground that after appointment through the Employment Exchange, the employee continued in service for 24 years without any break. The Note to rule 3 of Part I of Kerala Service Rules stipulates that the rules as a whole shall not apply to the persons appointed to the service of the Government temporarily under rule 9 of Part II of the KS & SSR, except to the extent specified by the Government. The respondent has no case that the Government have by any specific or general order made the Kerala Service Rules applicable to persons provisionally appointed under rule 9 of Part II of the KS & SSR. 17. Rule 4 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules stipulates that no claim to pension is admitted; (a) when an employee is appointed for limited time only, or for specific duty, on the completion of which he is to be discharged; (b) when a person's whole time is not retained for the public service, but he is merely paid for work done for the State; (c) when a person is employed temporarily on monthly wages without specified limit of time or duty and (d) when an employee holds some other pensionable office, he earns no pension in respect of an office of the kind mentioned in clause (b) or in respect of duties paid for by local allowance. The respondent was temporarily appointed for a period of 180 days and therefore, as she was appointed for a limited time, the mere fact that she continued in service beyond the period of 180 days for which she was appointed, will not entitle her to claim pension in view of clause (a) of rule 4 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. As held by the learned single Judge in Balakrishna Pillai v. Asst. Executive Engineer (supra) and by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999, on the terms of rule 9 of Part II of the KS&SSR, the respondent was not entitled to be regularized in service. As a matter of fact no order regularizing the respondent in service was also passed. The respondent cannot therefore contend that she is entitled for grant of pensionary benefits by treating her regular employee who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 18. It is relying on the observations in paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999 quoted above, that the learned single Judge held in O.P.No.19571 of 2002 that the service rendered by a provisional employee and a regular employee do not normally differ in its quality and content and therefore, they should be paid ex-gratia pension. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2432 of 2007 is also on the same lines. The learned single Judge who decided O.P.No.19571 of 2002 or the Division Bench which decided W.A.No.2432 of 2007 did not notice the specific finding entered by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999 that a provisional employee who has served for more than ten years is not eligible for statutory pension under the Kerala Service Rules. We are in agreement with the opinion of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999 that a provisional employee is not entitled to statutory pension notwithstanding the fact that he has served for more than ten years continuously and without break. 19. We notice that in the judgment under challenge, the learned single Judge has not directed grant of pensionary benefits, but has only directed the Government to grant ex-gratia pension to the respondent with effect from the date on which she ceased to be in service. 19. We notice that in the judgment under challenge, the learned single Judge has not directed grant of pensionary benefits, but has only directed the Government to grant ex-gratia pension to the respondent with effect from the date on which she ceased to be in service. The grant of ex-gratia pension is governed by G.O(P) No.1851/99/Fin dated 18.9.1999 which provides for payment of pension to those employees who retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, but are ineligible for statutory pension in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Service Rules, for the reason that they do not have the minimum qualifying service of 10 years. G.O (P) No.1851/99/Fin dated 18.9.1999 is extracted below:- FINANCE (PAY REVISION IMPLEMENTATION) DEPARTMENT G.O.(P)1851/99/Fin. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 18th September, 1999 Abstract:- Pension - Introduction of Ex-gratia Pension Scheme- Orders Issued. ORDER Government are pleased to introduce an Ex-gratia Pension Scheme to provide relief to the employees who retire from service on superannuation and are ineligible for statutory pension as per the provisions in Kerala Service Rules. The scheme of pension shall be regulated as follows:- 1. Eligibility. (a) The scheme is limited to the employees who retire from service on superannuation but do not have the minimum qualifying service (i.e., 10 years) for statutory pension as specified in Rule 57 of Part III, Kerala Service Rules. The employees who had already retired from service on superannuation as above will also be eligible for the Ex-gratia Pension. (b) Those who have lost their eligibility for minimum pension on account of not having the minimum qualifying service (i.e. 10 years) by availing leave without allowances including those sanctioned under Appendix XII A/Appendix XII C of Kerala Service Rules will not be eligible for the Ex-gratia Pension. (c) The Scheme is optional. Those who are eligible as above may opt for the Scheme of Ex-gratia Pension. They shall not be eligible for the service gratuity in lieu of Service Pension admissible as per Kerala Service Rules. However, those who had already retired from service till the date this order are exempted from refunding the amount of service gratuity. (d) The legal heirs of the pensioners coming under this Scheme, shall not be entitled to family pension. 2. Consolidated amount of Ex-gratia Pension. However, those who had already retired from service till the date this order are exempted from refunding the amount of service gratuity. (d) The legal heirs of the pensioners coming under this Scheme, shall not be entitled to family pension. 2. Consolidated amount of Ex-gratia Pension. The employees coming under the Scheme are eligible for a consolidated amount of Ex-gratia Pension as given below: They will not be eligible for any dearness relief. Completed years of Qualifying Service. Consolidated Amount (Rs. Per month) 9 years : 1148 8 years : 1070 7 years : 893 6 years : 765 5 years : 638 4 years : 510 3 years and below : 400 Note:- Fraction of less than half year will be ignored and half year and above will be rounded to the next completed year. Those having more than 9 years of qualifying service will come under the existing statutory service pension scheme. 3. Procedure. Those employees who would like to opt for this scheme of pension shall apply for the same in the prescribed application form attached with this Order to the Head of Office. The Head of Office shall properly verify the claim and send proposals to the Head of Department, who after due processing shall forward the same to the Accountant General for authorising the Ex-gratia Pension. The existing procedures in respect of granting service pension may be followed as far as practicable under the new scheme. 4. Date of Effect. The scheme shall come into force with effect from 1st October, 1999. Those employees who had already retired from service shall also be considered for granting Ex-gratia Pension but will not be entitled to payment of any arrear for the period prior to 1.10.1999. By order of the Governor, VINOD RAI, Principal Secretary (Finance)" 20. By G.O.(P) No.180/06/Fin dated 18.4.2004, an ad-hoc increase of 10% in pension was sanctioned to ex-gratia pensioners who retired prior to 1.7.2004. Later, by G.O.(P) No.109/07/Fin dated 14.3.2007, the rate of ex-gratia pension was revised in respect of pensioners who retired after 1.7.2004. By G.O(P) No.420/07/Fin dated 13.9.2007, the ex-gratia pension payable to pensioners who retired prior to 1.7.2004 was once again revised. Later, by G.O.(P) No.109/07/Fin dated 14.3.2007, the rate of ex-gratia pension was revised in respect of pensioners who retired after 1.7.2004. By G.O(P) No.420/07/Fin dated 13.9.2007, the ex-gratia pension payable to pensioners who retired prior to 1.7.2004 was once again revised. It is evident from the stipulations in the Government order dated 18.9.1999 extracted above, that it does not contemplate payment of ex-gratia pension to provisional employees, but only to those regular employees who are ineligible for statutory pension for the reason that they do not have the minimum qualifying service of 10 years. The scheme for payment of ex-gratia pension introduced by G.O.(P)No.1851/99/Fin., dated 18.9.1999, was relied on by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999 only for the purpose of directing the Government to examine the claim of the appellants therein for pensionary benefits. On the terms of the Government order dated 18.9.1999, it applies only to those regular employees who retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, but are ineligible for statutory pension as specified in rule 57 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules for the reason that they do not have the minimum qualifying service of ten years. The Government order dated 18.9.1999 does not in our opinion govern situations like the case on hand where a provisional employee who remains in service for more than ten years seeks payment of pensionary benefits, notwithstanding the fact that under the Kerala Service Rules she is not eligible for payment of statutory pension. The ex-gratia pension scheme contemplated in G.O(P)No.1851/99/Fin. dated 18.9.1999 cannot therefore be pressed into service or relied on to direct the Government to pay ex-gratia pension to the respondent. 21. However, having regard to the fact that the respondent herein was appointed on a provisional basis on 6.10.1982, after a process of selection through the Employment Exchange and was aged only 34 years when she was appointed on a provisional basis and continued to serve the department where she was appointed without break, till she was relieved from service on 31.5.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation (55 years), we are of the opinion that she cannot be denied the benefit of the judgment of the learned single Judge. The appointment of the respondent was made after her name was sponsored by the Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Neyyattinkara and she underwent a process of selection. She was also qualified to be appointed as IInd Grade Draftsman. Her appointment was not in violation of the rules or without following the prescribed procedure. The service rendered by the respondent as IInd Grade Draftsman, though as a provisional employee, cannot be said to be different in quality and content from the service rendered by a regularly appointed IInd Grade Draftsman. As observed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999, if the Government had appointed a regular hand as IInd Grade Draftsman and he had served for a period of twenty years and six months (the period during which the respondent herein was in service, though on a provisional basis) he would have been eligible for payment of statutory pension. However, because of the nature of the appointment, the respondent is denied pension. The respondent is also not entitled to payment of ex-gratia pension under the Ex-gratia Pension Scheme contemplated in G.O(P)No.1851/99/Fin., dated 18.9.1999. As observed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1381 of 1996 and 1975 of 1999, it is to enable a democratically elected Government sensitive to the grievances of the citizens, to redress their grievances that rule 7 has been incorporated in Part I of the Kerala Service Rules and rule 11 in Part III of the Kerala Service Rules empowering the Government to dispense with or relax the requirement of any rule and in individual cases to allow the service rendered by an employee to count for pension notwithstanding the provisions contained in rule 10 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. Rule 7 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules reads as follows:- "7. Where Government are satisfied that the operation of any rule under these Rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, the Government may dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as they may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner." Rule 10 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules reads as follows:- "10. The service of an employee does not qualify for pension unless he is appointed, his duties regulated, and paid by the Government or under conditions determined by the Government." Rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules reads as follows: "11. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 10 the Government may, (1) declare that any specified kind of service rendered shall qualify 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." Notes. 1 and 2 are omitted as they are not relevant 22. Rule 7 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules empowers the Government to dispense with or relax the requirement of any rule in the Kerala Service Rules, if the Government are satisfied that the operation of that rule causes undue hardship. Rule 11(1) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules empowers the Government to declare that any specified kind of service rendered shall qualify for pension. Rule 11(2) of Part III, of the Kerala Service Rules stipulates that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 10, the Government may, 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. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (P.N.Ravindran, J) was a party, has in Accounts Officer (Pension Sanction) v. Mariyamma, 2010 (2) KLT 241 held that the power conferred on the Government under rule 7 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules is a power coupled with a duty to act, when the circumstances warranting the exercise of that power are shown to exist. Reliance was placed on the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Thankappan Nair v. State of Kerala 2001 (3) KLT 855 , to hold that if the petitioner is able to satisfy the Kerala State Electricity Board, which is also governed by the rules in the Kerala Service Rules, that the operation of rule 90 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules or any other rule in the Kerala Service Rules causes undue hardship to her, the Board is bound to exercise the power vested in it under rule 7 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. We are in agreement with the opinion of the Division Bench in Accounts Officer (Pension Sanction) (supra). 23. The Apex Court has in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Varghese, 2003 (2) KLT 706 (SC), after examining the goals that pension schemes seek to sub-serve, held as follows:- "15. Let us, therefore, examine; as was done by this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 10) as to what are the goals that any pension scheme seeks to subserve. A pension scheme consistent with available resources must provide that the petitioner would be able to live: (i) free from want with decency, independence and self- respect and (ii) at a standard equivalent at the pre- retirement level. This approach may merit the criticism that if a developing country like India cannot provide an employee while rendering service a living wage, how can one be assured of it in retirement? This can be aptly illustrated by a small illustration. A man with a broken arm asked his doctor whether he will be able to play the piano after the cast is removed. When assured that he will, the patient replied, 'that is funny, I could not before'. It appears that in determining the minimum amount required for living decently is difficult, selecting the percentage representing the proper ratio between earnings and the retirement income is harder. But it is imperative to note that as self-sufficiency declines the need for his attendance or institutional care grows. Many are literally surviving now than the past. We owe it to them and ourselves that they live, not merely exist. The philosophy prevailing in a given society at various stages of its development profoundly influences its social objectives. The law is one of the chief instruments whereby the social policies are implemented and pension is paid according to rules which can be said to provide social security law by which it is meant those legal mechanisms primarily concerned to ensure the provision for the individual or a cash income adequate, when taken along with the benefit in kind provided by other social services (such as free medical aid) to ensure for him a culturally acceptable minimum standard of living when the normal means of doing so failed. (See Social Security Law of Prof. Harry Calvert, p.1) 16. (See Social Security Law of Prof. Harry Calvert, p.1) 16. Viewed in the light of the present day notions pension is a term applied to periodic money payments to a person who retires at a certain age considered age of disability; payments usually continue for the rest of the natural life of the recipient. The reasons underlying the grant of pension vary from country to country and from scheme to scheme. But broadly stated they are:(i) as compensation to former members of the armed forces or their dependents for old age, disability, or death (usually from services causes), (ii) as old age retirement or disability benefits for civilian employees, and (iii) as social security payments for the aged, disabled or deceased citizens made in accordance with the rules governing social service programmes of the country. Pensions under the first head are of great antiquity Under the second head they have been in force in one form or another in some countries for over a century but those coming under the third head are relatively of recent origin, though they are of the greatest magnitude. There are other views about pensions such as charity, paternalism, deferred pay, reward for service rendered, or a means of promoting general welfare. (See Encyclopedia Britannica Vol.7, p.575). But these views have become otiose. 17. Pension to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Dodge v. Board of Education (1937 (302) US 74 : 82 Law Edn.58) a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with the added qualification that it should ordinarily ensure freedom from undeserved want. 18. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio- economic justice which inheres economic security in the foil of life when physical and mental powers start ebbing corresponding to aging progress and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to an employee is earned be said rendering long and sufficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and pecuniary if there is nothing to fall back upon. 19. The discernible purpose thus underlying pension scheme or a statute introducing the pension scheme must inform interpretative process and accordingly it should receive a liberal construction and the Courts may not so interpret such statute as to render them obscure (See American Jurisprudence 24.881). 20. From the aforesaid analysis three things emerge:(i) that pension is neither bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to the statute, if any, holding the field, (ii) that the pension is not an ex-gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for employers on an assurance that in their ripe old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the emoluments earlier drawn. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the emoluments earlier drawn. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement. That is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure." The Apex Court held that (i) pension is neither bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to the statute, if any, holding the field, (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for employers on an assurance that in their ripe old age they would not be left in lurch. 24. As stated earlier, the respondent herein had, ever since she was appointed on 6.10.1982, served the Government as a IInd Grade Draftsman continuously and without break for a period of twenty years and six months till she was relieved from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2003. She had during the said period rendered service to the public. By virtue of the fact that she was permitted to continue in service, she did not seek other avenues of employment and thereby became ineligible to seek employment in Government. She did not also seek employment in the private sector as she was under the belief that she will be allowed to continue till she attains the age of 55 years. In such circumstances, as the provisions in the Kerala Service Rules regarding payment of statutory pension and the provisions of the Ex-gratia Pension Scheme operate to the detriment of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the Government should relax the rigour of the rules and sanction and disburse pension to the petitioner taking cue from the stipulations in the Ex-gratia Pension Scheme introduced as per G.O(P) No.1851/99/Fin dated 18.9.1999. We also notice in this context that but for the Ex-gratia Pension Scheme, even regular employees of the Government who retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, but do not have the minimum qualifying service of ten years, are ineligible for pension. We also notice in this context that but for the Ex-gratia Pension Scheme, even regular employees of the Government who retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, but do not have the minimum qualifying service of ten years, are ineligible for pension. It is to redress their grievances that the Ex-gratia Pension Scheme was introduced in the year 1999. In such circumstances as there is no noticeable difference in the quality and content of the service rendered by a provisional employee like the respondent and a regularly appointed IInd Grade Draftsman and the respondent possessed the qualifications prescribed for the post, we are of the opinion that the Government should, in relaxation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Service Rules, exercising the power conferred on it under rule 7 of Part II of the Kerala Service Rules and rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, sanction and pay pension to the respondent. The yardstick adopted by the Government when it implemented the Ex-gratia Pension Scheme, to quantify the pension payable to regular employees who have less than ten years of service, should in our opinion serve as a guideline for the Government to fix and pay pension to the respondent, in relaxation of the rules. We accordingly allow the writ appeal, modify the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of W.P.(C)No.20727 of 2004 with a direction to the appellants to sanction and disburse pension to the respondent herein invoking the power conferred on the Government under rule 7 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules read with rule 11 of Part III thereof, having regard to ex-gratia pension sanctioned to regular employees who have less than ten years of service. The Government shall have due regard to the fact that the respondent herein had served the Government for twenty years and six months and therefore, the pension sanctioned to her should be at least twice the ex-gratia pension payable to a regular employee having nine years of service. Needful in the matter shall be done, appropriate orders passed and arrears of pension disbursed to the respondent expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date on which the respondent produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Principal Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department. The parties shall bear their respective costs.