Judgment Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The appellant is petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20298/2008. The said Writ Petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P2 Government order to the extent of denying the reckoning of 50% of the part-time contingent service rendered by the appellant as qualifying service for pension and for other consequential reliefs. 2. On 31.12.2004, the appellant retired from service on superannuation, while working as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the Collegiate Education Department. Initially, she entered service in the erstwhile Panchayat Common Service as Part-Time Librarian in Kumaranallur Panchayat on 17.3.1978. Later, she was transferred to Parassala Panchayat. While working at Parassala Panchayat, she was promoted as Bill Collector on 14.11.1984, which was a full time post in that service. Therefore, the appellant who was a part-time contingent employee in the Panchayat service was absorbed in regular service on 14.11.1984. 3. While the appellant was continuing as Bill Collector in the Panchayat service she got appointment as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Collegiate Education Department, as advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission. She joined service in the Collegiate Education Department as LDC on 9.5.1986 and later she was promoted as UDC. While continuing as such, she retired from service on 31.12.2004, on superannuation. 4. In Exhibit P1 Pension Payment Order issued by the 3rd respondent, the date of commencement of service of the appellant is shown as 9.5.1986 and the total length of her qualifying service is taken as 18 years, 7 months and 23 days, rounded to 19 years. According to the appellant, her prior service in the Panchayat service, both part-time contingent service as well as full time service after her absorption in regular service, are to be counted as qualifying service for pension. Therefore, in addition to her prior service as Bill Collector in the Panchayat service, 50% of her part- time contingent service should also be counted as qualifying service for pension. 5. Based on a representation dated 21.3.2005 submitted by the appellant, the 1st respondent by Exhibit P2 communication dated 17.10.2005 directed the 2nd respondent to reckon the service rendered by her as Bill Collector in the Panchayat service as qualifying service for pension, but rejected the request to reckon 50% of her part-time contingent service as qualifying service for pension. 5. Based on a representation dated 21.3.2005 submitted by the appellant, the 1st respondent by Exhibit P2 communication dated 17.10.2005 directed the 2nd respondent to reckon the service rendered by her as Bill Collector in the Panchayat service as qualifying service for pension, but rejected the request to reckon 50% of her part-time contingent service as qualifying service for pension. According to the appellant, going by Exhibit P3 Government letter addressed to the Director of Panchayat, while calculating the pensionary benefits of those Panchayat employees who are having contingent service in Panchayat prior to their appointment in regular service, 50% of their part-time contingent service should be reckoned as qualifying service for pension, in view of G.O.(P)No.356/94/Fin. dated 27.5.1994 and G.O.(P) No.506/95/Fin. dated 20.8.1995. Therefore, she submitted Exhibit P4 representation before the 1st respondent in order to reckon for pension 50% of her part-time contingent service for the period from 17.3.1978 to 13.11.1984. Thereafter, she has approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.20298/2008 seeking various reliefs. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent contending that, though the Government vide G.O. (Ms.) No.25/87/LAD. dated 3.2.1987 declared the employees of Panchayat service as Government employees with effect from 3.2.1987, the contingent employees continue as Panchayat employees. Going by G.O. (P)No.193/04/Fin. dated 20.4.2004, the prior Panchayat service of the Government employees can be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. But, the said Government order is not applicable to part-time contingent employees of Panchayat service. The 1st respondent further contended that, as per Rule 14A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSR') contingent employees absorbed in regular establishment will be allowed to count 50% of the contingent service for the purpose of pension. But, the said rule applies only when an employees is absorbed from the contingent service to the regular service under the same employer. In this case, Panchayat employees except contingent employees are declared as Government employees. Hence the contingent service of the appellant cannot be taken as qualifying service for pension. 7. The appellant filed reply affidavit, contending that, she had prior Panchayat service before entering the Government service, which includes her part-time contingent service as well. The Panchayat service of the appellant after her absorption into regular service as Bill Collector has already been reckoned as qualifying service for pension. 7. The appellant filed reply affidavit, contending that, she had prior Panchayat service before entering the Government service, which includes her part-time contingent service as well. The Panchayat service of the appellant after her absorption into regular service as Bill Collector has already been reckoned as qualifying service for pension. Hence, 50% of her part-time contingent service for the period from 17.3.1978 to 13.11.1984 should also be reckoned for the purpose of pension. 8. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 5.7.2010 dismissed the Writ Petition relying on the judgment of this court in Abdul Kader v. Accounts Officer ( 2006 (4) KLT 515 ) holding that, the scope of Rule 14A of Part III of the KSR will have to be confined to the employees who were absorbed and retired from the very same department. The appellant who was absorbed in the Panchayat service was later retired from the Collegiate Education Department. As her retirement is not from the department in which she was absorbed, she cannot claim the benefit of Rule 14A. It is aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant is before us in this Writ Appeal. 9. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that 50% of the part-time contingent service of the appellant for the period from 17.3.1978 to 13.11.1984 should be reckoned as qualifying service for pension and the stand to the contra in Exhibit P2 is legally unsustainable. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, relying on the judgment of this Court in Abdul Kader's case (supra) contended that, the finding to that effect in Exhibit P2 is perfectly legal. 11. We have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. The only question to be decided is whether the appellant is entitled to reckon 50% of her part-time contingent service for the period from 17.3.1978 to 13.11.1984 as qualifying service for pension. On 17.3.1978, the appellant entered service as Part-Time Librarian in the Panchayat service, which admittedly is a part-time contingent post. On 14.11.1984, she was promoted as Bill Collector, which was a full time post in that service. Hence, the appellant who was a part-time contingent employee in the Panchayat service for the period from 17.3.1978 to 13.11.1984 was absorbed in the regular service on 14.11.1984. On 14.11.1984, she was promoted as Bill Collector, which was a full time post in that service. Hence, the appellant who was a part-time contingent employee in the Panchayat service for the period from 17.3.1978 to 13.11.1984 was absorbed in the regular service on 14.11.1984. Therefore, the appointment of the appellant as LDC in the Collegiate Education Department on 9.5.1986, as advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission, was much after her absorption in regular service as Bill Collector. 12. Though in Exhibit P1 Pension Payment Order the date of commencement of service of the appellant was shown as 9.5.1986, the 1st respondent by Exhibit P2 directed the 2nd respondent to reckon the service rendered by the appellant from 14.11.1984 onwards as Bill Collector in the Panchayat service as qualifying service for pension. But the request made to reckon 50% of her part-time contingent service for the period from 17.3.1978 to 13.11.1984 as qualifying service for pension was turned down stating that there is no provision to reckon the service of Part-Time Librarian in the Panchayat service for the purpose of pension. 13. As admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the prior Panchayat service of the Government employees can be reckoned as qualifying service for pension, vide G.O. (P)No.193/04/Fin. dated 20.4.2004. But, according to the 1st respondent, the said Government order is not applicable to part-time contingent employees of Panchayat service. The counter affidavit further states that, as per Rule 14A of Part III of the KSR, the contingent employees absorbed in regular establishment will be allowed to count 50% of their contingent service for the purpose of pension. But, it applies only when an employee is absorbed from the contingent service to the regular service under the same employer. 14. It is pertinent to note that, the appellant who was continuing as a part-time contingent employee was absorbed in the regular service as early as on 14.11.1984. On such absorption in regular service, the appellant is legally entitled to reckon 50% of her part-time contingent service for the purpose of pension. It was much after such absorption in regular service, she got Government employment in the Collegiate Education Department, as advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission. On such absorption in regular service, the appellant is legally entitled to reckon 50% of her part-time contingent service for the purpose of pension. It was much after such absorption in regular service, she got Government employment in the Collegiate Education Department, as advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Therefore, as on 9.5.1986, the date on which the appellant got appointment as LDC in the Collegiate Education Department she was not a part- time contingent employee in the Panchayat service. As on the date of such appointment, the appellant has to her credit prior Panchayat service for the period from 17.3.1978 to 8.5.1986, which includes her part-time contingent service as well. In such circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that, the prior Panchayat service of the appellant cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for pension in terms of G.O. (P)No.193/04/Fin. dated 20.4.2004. 15. Rule 14A of Part III of the KSR is extracted hereunder; "14A. Contingent employees absorbed in regular establishment will be allowed to count 50 per cent of the contingency service for purpose of pension. Provided that this rule will apply to case of retirements from 2nd September 1957 only (irrespective of the date of absorption of such employees into regular establishment). In cases of retirements on or after 1st April 1968 the entire full time contingency service will count for pension. Explanation:- Periods of officiating/temporary service in regular establishment and/or periods of work establishment service interpose between periods of contingency service will be treated as contingency service." 16. As per Rule 14A of Part III of the KSR, the contingent employees absorbed in regular establishment will be allowed to count 50% of the contingent service for the purpose of pension. Going by Exhibit P3 Government letter addressed to the Director of Panchayat, while calculating the pensionary benefits of those employees who are having contingent service in Panchayat prior to their appointment in regular service, 50% of their part-time contingent service can be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. Exhibit P3 letter was issued to the Director of Panchayat, taking note of G.O.(P)No.356/94/Fin. dated 27.5.1994 and G.O. (P)No.506/95/Fin. dated 22.8.1995 issued by the Government in the matter of reckoning of 50% part-time contingent service in combination with regular service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, under Rule 14A of Part III of the KSR. Exhibit P3 letter was issued to the Director of Panchayat, taking note of G.O.(P)No.356/94/Fin. dated 27.5.1994 and G.O. (P)No.506/95/Fin. dated 22.8.1995 issued by the Government in the matter of reckoning of 50% part-time contingent service in combination with regular service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, under Rule 14A of Part III of the KSR. In view of Exhibit P3 Government letter, the appellant who was having part-time contingent service in the Panchayat prior to her absorption in regular service is entitled to reckon 50% of her part -time contingent service as qualifying service for pension. In such circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in the contention to the contra raised on behalf of the respondents. 17. In Abdul Kader's case (supra) the writ petitioner in that case joined service as part-time contingent sweeper in the Government Mopila School, Kunhimangalam, on 10.10.1964. On 12.2.1969 he was relieved from that school. Thereafter, on 13.2.1969 he entered service of the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department as a peon, as advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Later, he was absorbed in the Kerala Water Authority and he retired on superannuation on 31.10.2002. His complaint was that, though he is entitled to count 50% of the part-time contingent service as part time contingent sweeper in Government Mopila School as qualifying service for pension, the said benefit was denied to him. This Court, in the said judgment, accepted the contention taken by the Kerala Water Authority that Rule 14A of Part III of the KSR entitles an employee to count contingency service only when he is absorbed into that service. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "3. I am inclined to agree with the contention of learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. R.14A clearly provides for the contingency when an employee is absorbed from the contingency service to the regular service of the same employer. In the facts of this case, it cannot be in dispute that the petitioner was not absorbed into the regular service of the P.H. Engineering Department. Obviously, he cannot have a case that he was absorbed into the regular service of the Kerala Water Authority. Apparently, petitioner resigned from the service in the School in 1969. Thereafter, he was recruited directly and he was appointed pursuant to the advice of the Public Service Commission. Obviously, he cannot have a case that he was absorbed into the regular service of the Kerala Water Authority. Apparently, petitioner resigned from the service in the School in 1969. Thereafter, he was recruited directly and he was appointed pursuant to the advice of the Public Service Commission. By no stretch of imagination, can this be found to be absorption in service within the meaning of R.14A Part III KSR. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed." 18. Therefore, in Abdul Kader's case (supra), the Writ Petitioner who was working as a part time sweeper in Government Mopila School was never absorbed in regular service. Instead, before absorption in regular service, he was relieved from that school on 12.2.1969 and he entered service of the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department as a peon, as advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Later, he was absorbed in the Kerala Water Authority and while continuing as such he retired on superannuation. But, in the case on hand, the appellant who was a part-time contingent employee in the Panchayat service was absorbed in regular service as early as on 14.11.1984 and it was much after such absorption in regular service, she got Government employment in the Collegiate Education Department, as advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission. 19. The entitlement of the appellant to reckon 50% of that part-time contingent service for the purpose of pension cannot be denied for the reason that subsequent to such absorption she was relieved from Panchayat service and joined the Collegiate Education Department, as advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The scope of Rule 14A of Part III of the KSR cannot be confined to the employees who were absorbed and retired from the very same department. The fact that the appellant who was absorbed in the Panchayat service was later retired from the Collegiate Education Department will not in any manner disentitle the reckoning of 50% of her part-time contingent service in the Panchayat service for the purpose of pension, in terms of Rule 14A of Part III of the KSR and we hold so. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, W.P.(C)No.20298/2008 is allowed, quashing Exhibit P2 Government order to the extent of denying the reckoning of 50% of the part-time service rendered by the appellant as qualifying service for pension. The respondents are directed to revise the pension of the appellant after reckoning 50% of her part-time contingent service for the period from 17.3.1978 to 13.11.1984 and disburse all consequential monetary benefits within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. No order as to costs.