Judgment Ashok Bhushan, A.C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 13/12/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.C.No.22254/2010 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition imposing cost of Rs.10,000/-against the State Government and directed the State Government to issue order revising pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner by reckoning previous service put by her in aided school for the period from 06/06/1979 to 22/09/1987. The Division Bench, while hearing this writ appeal, has also issued a direction on 09/09/2013 to the Government to explain as to why special treatment was extended to the employees at Exts.P4, P5 and P6 by giving similar benefits to them as compared to the case of the present respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the writ appeal are as follows: The respondent, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioner', had worked as High School Assistant, Sanskrit in an aided school from 06/06/1979 to 22/11/1987. On the advice of Kerala Public Service Commission, the writ petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), where she joined on 23/11/1987. The petitioner retired on 31/12/2007 from the service of the Board. Even prior to her retirement, the petitioner had written to the Government to reckon her aided school service for the pensionary benefits. The State Government rejected the claim of the petitioner referring to the Regulations of the Kerala State Housing Board. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.C.No.8122/2009. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had relied on similar orders issued by the Government directing the Board to reckon the prior service for calculating the pensionery benefits. The learned Single Judge, vide its judgment dated 27/10/2009, directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the proposal submitted by the 3rd respondent for reckoning the prior service rendered by the petitioner in the Aided School. The learned Single Judge directed that the matter shall be reconsidered duly adverting to Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P6(a) and fresh orders shall be passed. Subsequent to the said order dated 27/10/2009, the State Government issued an order on 01/02/2010 again rejecting the proposal of the Board to count the past service of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner was not in Government service. Subsequent to the said order dated 27/10/2009, the State Government issued an order on 01/02/2010 again rejecting the proposal of the Board to count the past service of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner was not in Government service. Hence her earlier service could not have been reckoned. The order was again challenged by means of W.P.C.No.6429/2010 by the petitioner wherein a judgment of the Division Bench in Abdul Jabbar v. K.S.E.B [ 2010(1) KLT 586 ] was also relied. The learned Single Judge, noticing the earlier litigation, made an observation in favour of the petitioner and passed an order directing the respondent to revise the pensionary benefits in accordance with law. Following are the directions issued in paragraph 3 of the judgment. “In the facts, as noticed above, I see no reason to take a view different from one taken by the Division Bench in Ext.P17 judgment in Abdul Jabbar v. K.S.E.B ( 2010(1) KLT 586 ). Therefore the rejection of the petitioner's request by Exts.P3 & P16 are set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner reckoning her previous service in the aided school for the period from 06/06/1979 to 22/11/1987, in accordance with law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.” 3. After the order of this Court dated 25/05/2010, the Government had again issued an order on 01/07/2010 reiterating the view that the petitioner, being not a Government servant, no rule enables her to claim prior service in aided school for reckoning pensionary benefits. Order of the Government on 01/07/2010 was challenged by the writ petitioner by means of W.P.C.No.22254/2010 which had been allowed by judgment dated 13/12/2012 by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had also relied on Abdul Jabbar's case (supra). Further, it is held by the learned Single Judge that since the judgment at Ext.P18 dated 25/05/2010 had attained finality between the parties, the Government was not entitled to take a different view in the matter. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. This appeal has been filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13/12/2012. 4. Further, it is held by the learned Single Judge that since the judgment at Ext.P18 dated 25/05/2010 had attained finality between the parties, the Government was not entitled to take a different view in the matter. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. This appeal has been filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13/12/2012. 4. Smt.Girija Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal, submitted that pensionary benefits to the employees of the Board are regulated by the statutory Regulations namely the Kerala State Housing Board Employees' (Pension and other Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), wherein Rule 14E of the Kerala Service Rules (for short 'KSR') Part III is specifically excluded which is the rule providing for adding service in the aided institutions. Hence, in accordance with such statutory Regulations, the petitioner was not entitled to reckon her service in the aided school. It is further submitted that the Division Bench judgment dated 25/05/2010 was inter parties, but, since the Court in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid judgment directed the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits in accordance with law, the Government took a decision in accordance with law and proceeded to reject the claim. It is further submitted that the cases of those employees of the Board, who were granted the benefit of pension as relied by the petitioner in Exts.P4, P5 and P6 were reexamined after issuing individual notices to the employees and the Government had subsequently revised the said order deleting the benefits given to the said employees. She has referred to the affidavit filed by the State as per the directions issued by this Court dated 25/05/2014 wherein it is stated in paragraph 4 that the Government have issued orders regarding the said benefit to Sri.Jayaraman, Sri.Abdul Salam, and Sri.Abbasalam and the copies of the orders were also brought on record. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that even though the judgment of this Court dated 25/05/2010 can be read as a judgment regarding certain findings against the State Government, since the matter was only remanded for a decision of the Government and the matter was taken in appeal, that is a higher forum, the appellants are fully entitled to canvass the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 25/05/2010. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the judgment in Abdul Jabbar's case (supra), which has been relied on by the learned Single Judge, has no application in the facts of the given case and the said judgment ought not to have been relied for giving any benefit to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, controverting the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the petitioner was fully entitled to the pensionary benefits by adding her past service as teacher in aided school and the Division Bench judgment in Abdul Jabbar's case (supra) is fully applicable. It was so held by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 25/05/2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the judgment dated 25/05/2010 has become final between the parties and the State Government cannot go beyond the said judgment and reject the claim of the petitioner when the learned Single Judge directed the State Government to extend the benefit relying on Abdul Jabbar's case (supra). 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Before we advert to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is useful to note the relevant statutory provisions governing the pensionary benefits to the employees of the Board. The Regulations, 1990, as noted above, have been framed in exercise of power under Section 19 of the Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971 in respect of pension and other retirement benefits of the employees of the Board. Regulation 4 of the Regulations makes the provisions of Part III KSR except those specified in the Schedule appended to the Regulations. The Regulations, 1990, as noted above, have been framed in exercise of power under Section 19 of the Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971 in respect of pension and other retirement benefits of the employees of the Board. Regulation 4 of the Regulations makes the provisions of Part III KSR except those specified in the Schedule appended to the Regulations. Regulation 4 is quoted as below: “Application of the provisions of Kerala Service Rules.- Subject to the provisions of the Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971 (19 of 1971) and also subject to the provisions of these Regulations, the rules contained in Part III of the Kerala Service Rules for the time being in force and the decisions, rulings and notifications given or issued by the Government of Kerala from time to time thereunder except these specified in the schedule appended to these Regulations, shall mutatis mutandis apply to all employees of the Board for regulating their pension and other retirement benefits.” Schedule to the Regulation which is relevant is as follows: “Schedule (See Regulation 4) The Kerala Service Rules Part III Chapter II Rules 14B to 14-1, 17 to 24 Chapter IV Section III - Rules 47 and 48 Chapter V Section III - Rules 65 Section VI Rules 80 to 89 Chapter VIII Section I Rules 111, 112 and 113 Chapter X Rules 140, 148 and 149” 9. KSR Part III Rule 14E(a) provides for aided school service put in by Government employees prior to entry in Government service eligible for pension with effect from 24th January 1968. Rule 14E(a) is as follows: “14E(a): Aided School Service put in by Government employees prior to entry in Government service qualifies. Takes effect from 24th January 1968.]” 10. Schedule to the Regulation expressly excluded Rule 14E from the applicability. Regulation 5 of the Regulations provides for qualifying service of the pension. Rule 14E(a) is as follows: “14E(a): Aided School Service put in by Government employees prior to entry in Government service qualifies. Takes effect from 24th January 1968.]” 10. Schedule to the Regulation expressly excluded Rule 14E from the applicability. Regulation 5 of the Regulations provides for qualifying service of the pension. Regulation 5 is as follows: “Service qualifying for pension.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules in Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, for the purpose of these Regulations, service of an employee qualifying for pension will be: i) Service under the Kerala State Housing Board; ii) Service under the erstwhile Trivandrum City Improvement Trust; iii) In respect of those employees who had served the Board and/or Trivandrum City Improvement Trust, on deputation from Central or State Government and subsequently absorbed in the regular establishment of the Board/City Improvement Trust, Service rendered by them under the Central/State Government prior to such absorption provided the employee had not received any pensionary benefits from the Central/State Government for such services; Provided further that such absorption has been made in accordance with Government Orders/Rules in force regarding pensionary liability.” 11. On a reading of Regulations 4, 5 and Schedule together it is clear that services rendered by employees of the Board in an aided institution prior to entry in service of the Board is not eligible for pensionary benefits. Thus the statutory provisions governing the retiral benefits including pension clearly indicates that the period for which the petitioner had claimed for her retiral benefits could not have been added. Abdul Jabbar's case (supra) which has been relied by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 25/05/2010 as well as in the judgment under appeal was a case which relates to an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. Rule 14E of the KSR came up for consideration in the said judgment and following was held in paragraph 3 of the said judgment. “3. Rule 14E of the KSR came up for consideration in the said judgment and following was held in paragraph 3 of the said judgment. “3. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that R.14E of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short “the Rules”) mandates reckoning of Aided School service also for the purpose of pensionary benefits and that the provisions of the said Rule are mutatis mutandis applicable to the K.S.E.B also, by virtue of Annexure A3 decision of the K.S.E.B. As per the said decision, the Rules, including the amendments introduced from time to time, are automatically applicable to the employees of the K.S.E.B, unless otherwise decided by the Full Board or they are contrary to the special regulations of the K.S.E.B. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case there is no decision by the Full Board of the K.S.E.B not to make applicable R.14E of the Rules and none of the regulations of the K.S.E.B runs counter to the aforementioned provisions in the Rules. So, the Writ Petition should have been allowed, it is submitted.” 12. Perusal of paragraph 3 of the above judgment clearly indicates that KSEB had taken a decision to apply Rule 14E to the employees of KSEB. Hence, due to the said reason, the Division Bench held that the employees of the KSEB is entitled to reckon the service in aided school. The said judgment relates to a different service and clearly not applicable to the employees of the Board. More so, in the statutory Regulations, 1990 regulating the pensionary benefits of the employees of the Board, Rule 14E has been specifically excluded. The order of the State Government, which was impugned in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal, was made in accordance with the Regulations, 1990. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner which has also been accepted by the learned Single Judge, that the judgment dated 25/05/2010 has become final between the parties. In Paragraph 3 of the judgment, as quoted above, it is held by the learned Single Judge that there is no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Division Bench in Abdul Jabbar's case (supra) wherein services rendered in aided school were reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits. In Paragraph 3 of the judgment, as quoted above, it is held by the learned Single Judge that there is no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Division Bench in Abdul Jabbar's case (supra) wherein services rendered in aided school were reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The learned Single Judge although directed for revising the pensionary benefits, but the said direction was coupled with the direction to revise the pensionary benefits “in accordance with law”. The Government read the said direction to take a decision in accordance with law and proceeded to reject the claim. The directions in the judgment cannot be treated to indicate that the issue was closed by the learned Single Judge and we are of the view that no error was committed by the Government in taking a decision, in accordance with law. 13. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that even though the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25/05/2010 may be read against the Government and the Government did not challenge the said order, but in this appeal which is before the higher forum, Government has every right to canvass the correctness of findings recorded in the said judgment. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [ AIR 1960 SC 941 ], Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi [(1981) 2 SC 103], Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan Nair v. Padmanabha Pillai [ (2004) 12 SCC 754 ] and A.P.SRTC and Others v. G.Srinivas Reddy and Others [ (2006) 3 SCC 674 ]. It is not necessary for us to enter into the said submission or express any concluded opinion regarding the said submission since we agree with the direction of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 25/05/2010 permitting the State Government to revise the pensionary benefits, in accordance with law. 14. A writ court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a mandamus which is contrary to the statutory provisions. Exercise of jurisdiction by this Court contrary to the statutory provision has always been deprecated. 15. The learned Single Judge, who allowed the writ petition, did not advert to the statutory Regulations, 1990 and the provisions of the statutory Regulation which govern the field. Exercise of jurisdiction by this Court contrary to the statutory provision has always been deprecated. 15. The learned Single Judge, who allowed the writ petition, did not advert to the statutory Regulations, 1990 and the provisions of the statutory Regulation which govern the field. Although the statutory Regulations have been referred to in paragraph 6 of the judgment, neither schedule to the Regulations has been noticed nor provision excluding the applicability of Rule 14E of KSR have been noted. 16. As noted above, the similar benefits which are extended to the employees at Exts.P4, P5 and P6 have already been recalled by the State Government and the same is brought on record by means of an affidavit dated 25/06/2014. In paragraph 4 of the aforesaid affidavit, the following has been stated. “4. It is respectfully submitted that though the employees covered by Exts.P4, P5 and P6 were granted the benefit of counting the service rendered by them previous to join Kerala State Housing Board as qualifying service for pension, files does not disclose the exact reason as to why they were treated as 'special cases'. Noticing the fact that there was no explicable reason behind extension of such benefit to those persons, the Government had decided to review the matter, especially in the light of the fact that permissibility of counting service other than in K.S.H.B to be reckoned for the purpose of pension would result in huge monetary loss to the Government. The Government had re-examined the case of all the three individuals covered by Exts.P4, P5 and P6 and individual notices were issued to them with a view to afford them an opportunity to offer their explanations in that regard. After a full-fledged hearing offered to the incumbents therein, the Government have issued orders recalling the said benefit granted to Sri.D.Jayaram, Sri.Abdul Salam and Sri.Abdassalam. True copies of G.O.(Rt) No.56/2014/Hsg., G.O.(Rt) No.57/2014/Hsg. G.O. (Rt) No.58/2014/Hsg. Dated 16.5.2014 issued in respect of Sri.Jayaraman, Sri.Abdul Salam and Sri.Abbasalam, recalling the benefit granted to them as per Exts.P4, P5 and P6 are produced herewith and marked as Annexures A2, A3 and A4 respectively.” 17. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13/12/2012 cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 13/12/2012 in W.P.C.No.22254/2010.