JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. The innate facet in these appeals for our consideration is, in fact, confined to very narrow environ, namely, whether the prior service of the writ petitioners/appellants served by them in aided private colleges would deserve to be reckoned and taken into account while determining their pensionary benefits consequent to their superannuation/retirement from Government colleges, which they joined after serving the private aided colleges. 2. The learned Single Judge, after taking careful stock of all the facts presented before her has concluded against the contentions of the petitioners and has found that since there are specific statutory prescriptions in the Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'KSR'), which go to impose conditions while construing such service, no relief can be granted contrary to such statutorily ingrained terms. 3. The learned Single Judge, of course, has, in the judgments impugned, noticed and adhered to the provisions of Rule 14 E, Part III of the KSR, and since an effective exposition on the issues herein twirl on the interpretation to be adopted to this Rule, we deem it appropriate to extract Rule 14 E of the KSR as under: “14E. (a) Aided School Service put in by Government employees prior to entry in Government service qualifies. Takes effect from 24th January 1968. (b) Aided private college service, both teaching and non-teaching, of Government employees prior to their entry in Government service shall qualify for pensionary benefits, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) The actual period of regular full time service rendered from the date of actual introduction of Direct Payment System in the aided private college shall be counted (ii) Service rendered prior to the introduction of Direct Payment System in any aided private college shall be counted only for the period of those incumbents who have been paid salary under grant-in-aid scheme introduced with effect from 1965 (iii) In cases of resignation of the appointment in private college service for the purpose of taking up appointment in Government, break, if any, between the private college service and the Government service shall not exceed the joining time admissible under the service rules, plus public holidays. Service prior to resignation for other purposes shall not be counted. Service prior to resignation for other purposes shall not be counted. (iv) The Government contribution if any, to their Provident Fund Account in respect of their aided private college service shall be refunded to Government (v) The Management's share of contribution if any in Provident Fund Account in respect of aided private college staff shall be credited to Government. In such cases, a certificate in the following form shall be recorded in the Service Book by the Head of Institution in which the incumbent had worked duly countersigned by the Head of the Department. “Certified that the Governments'/Managements' share of contribution with interest thereon which should otherwise have gone to the employee has not been/shall not be paid to him/her but has been/shall be credited to Government." The certificate regarding the crediting of Managers' contribution is not necessary when contributions are to be paid back to the Management under rules. (vi) For counting the aided private college service, a certificate in the following form shall be recorded in the Service Book by the Head of the Institution in which the incumbent had worked duly countersigned by the Head of the Department. “Service has been verified with reference to the initial records such as attendance registers, acquittance rolls, pay bills etc., and is qualifying for pension.” (c) Regular full time Government service of aided private college staff and aided private school staff prior to their entry in aided private college service and aided private school service shall be counted for pension for such service.” 4. The core issue in this horde of appeals, which number over 19 are certainly common. The factual factors and forensic circumstances presented in these cases are also not at variance with each other but are similar, if not identical, in its bearing. We, therefore, deem it felicitous to dispose of all these appeals by this judgment, since the reliefs sought in one are concatenated to the reliefs sought in the others and our views and observations in one would certainly impact and modulate the reliefs to be granted in the others. 5. We, therefore, deem it felicitous to dispose of all these appeals by this judgment, since the reliefs sought in one are concatenated to the reliefs sought in the others and our views and observations in one would certainly impact and modulate the reliefs to be granted in the others. 5. A glance on the most essential facts in all these appeals makes it limpid that all the writ petitioners are placed similarly and we, therefore, record in a generalised manner that all of them are retired from colleges, affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University and the Kerala University and that all of them had varying spells of either provisional or temporary services in various aided private colleges, prior to their entry into service in the colleges from where they finally superannuated/retired. Their claim is that the earlier spells served by them, which are all broken in nature, that is to say, not continuous, should also be accounted and added to their eligible service periods and while fixing their pensionary benefits consequent to their retirement from their respective colleges. The appellants' assertion is based on various government orders which according to them, stipulate that such non-continuous spells of services can be also taken into account and it is their specific predication that the issues involved in this case are, in fact, governed and covered by a Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.2157 of 2015, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure A2, along with the papers in W.A.No.2089 of 2017. 6. We will now deal with these contentions in detail. 7. We have heard Sri. S.Muhammed Haneeff, Sri. B.Mohanlal, Sri. M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair, Sri. P.Nandakumar and Sri. Siji Antony, learned counsel for the appellants in the various writ appeals and Sri.C.M.Suresh Babu, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 8. As we already indited above, and as is also virtually conceded by the learned counsel for the various appellants, the singular provisions with respect to the counting of broken spells/service, either temporary or in leave vacancies, served by the appellants in unaided private colleges, prior to their entry into service in the colleges affiliated to the Universities, are governed by Rule 14 E of the KSR which is extracted above. It is pertinent to note that none of the appellants have any contentions against the provisions or terms of this Rule and we are particularly cognizant cognizance that there is no challenge to this Rule, even collaterally, in any of the writ petitions involved in these appeals. Therefore, it is safe to take it that the accepted position of the appellants is that the provisions of Rule 14 E applies to them, going by the conceded submission that they have not sought to challenge the same as being illegal or unconstitutional, at least in these proceedings. 9. On a reading of Rule 14 E, which is extracted above, it becomes rather obvious that in the case of aided school service put in by government college employees prior to their entry in government service, the same is to be factored in without any other statutory reservation. However, in the case of the prior service in aided private colleges, both teaching and non-teaching, such service of the employees, prior to their entry in government service will qualify for pensionary benefits only subject to the six specific conditions mentioned therein. As we have already recorded above, since there is no contest to the Rule in these proceedings, it is obvious that the rigor of this Rule would apply to the appellants as well. 10. That being said, we notice from the submissions made before us that the appellants' attempt is to clothe their contentions in a slightly different manner. Though they do not contest or challenge the legality of Rule 14 E of the KSR, they say that notwithstanding its terms, they are entitled to have their prior aided private college service reckoned for pensionary benefits on the strength of the various orders issued by the government from time to time. They also contend that the prior aided private college service being statutorily, as per the provisions of Rule 33, Chapter IV, Part I of the KSR, entitled to be reckoned for increments, would axiomatically become deserving of being accounted for the purpose of fixing their pensionary benefits. They, for this purpose, rely on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which has been produced as Annexure A2, produced along with W.A.No.2089 of 2017. For the purpose of convenience, we will refer to this judgment by the name of the citation, viz; Smt. Jayasree P. v. State of Kerala. 11. They, for this purpose, rely on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which has been produced as Annexure A2, produced along with W.A.No.2089 of 2017. For the purpose of convenience, we will refer to this judgment by the name of the citation, viz; Smt. Jayasree P. v. State of Kerala. 11. We notice from Smt.Jayasree P. (supra), that the issue therein also related to the question of pension with respect to a retired teacher and that the contention raised before the learned Bench was whether the prior broken service in an aided private college should be taken note of while fixing the pensionary benefits. Their lordships, on a consideration of the contentions raised before them in the said writ appeals, found that all since such service is deserving of being accounted for the purpose of increments under Rule 33 of Chapter IV, Part I of KSR, would, as an automatic corollary, merit being reckoned as qualifying service for pension also. However, it is to be noticed that in the said judgment, there was no reference to Rule 14 E of Part III of the KSR and we are certain that this Rule had been brought to the notice of the learned Bench, the decision may have been to the contrary. We say that this with a great amount of conviction because the provisions of Rule 14 E are clearly contrary to the contentions impelled by the petitioners therein that merely because certain spells of service are liable to be counted for the purpose of increments, it shall be reckoned automatically for the purpose of pension also. We will explain our view in greater detail in the following paragraphs. 12. Rule 33 of Part I of the KSR prescribes the conditions on which the service of an employee counts for increments in a time scale as under: “A government decision thereon, numbered as decision No.2, was taken by the Government with respect to the conditions stipulated in the said Rule as infra: “Provisional service on regularisation with or without break in the same category or post will be treated as officiating service ab initio for the limited purpose of granting of increments. Provisional service followed by a regular appointment with or without break in the same category of post will also be treated as officiating service ab initio for the limited purpose of granting of increments. Provisional service followed by a regular appointment with or without break in the same category of post will also be treated as officiating service ab initio for the limited purpose of granting of increments. The term 'same category' of post for the purpose denotes post satisfying following conditions:- (i) The posts should carry the same or identical scale of pay, (ii) The qualification and method of appointment should be the same, and (iii) The post should fall in the same service. The above decision shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1st November 1956 but the monetary benefit thereof will be admissible only with effect from 24th July 1967.” This Government decision was taken on the 16th March of 1979, but one among the prescribed conditions, namely, condition No.3 was deleted in the year 1986 and the entire decision itself was finally deleted with effect from 1.10.1994. The question is whether merely because certain enumerated spells of services are directed to be considered for the purpose of increments, the appellants/writ petitioners would obtain the locus to claim that this should be counted for the pensionary benefits also. 13. The appellants, in substantiation of their contention rely on another government order, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure A1 in W.A. No. 2089/2017 namely, G.O.(P) No.2357/99/Fin.dated 25.11.1999. In this order, the government does not specifically deal with collegiate education or teachers, but postulated as a general principle, that provisional service, with or without break, rendered by government employees upto 30.9.1994, which qualifies for earning increments in terms of the government decision No.2 under Rule 33 Part III of the KSR, will be reckoned as qualifying service for pension, irrespective of the dates of retirement, after 20.11.1989. Pertinently, as we have already seen above, the relevance of the date 30.9.1994 in this government order is presumably only because the Government decision No.2 in Rule 33 of Part III of the KSR was deleted with effect from 1.10.1994. Now, the question is whether, because of this Government order, the petitioners would also be entitled to claim their previous service in aided private colleges as qualifying service for their pensionary benefits. 14. An examination of this issue would require us to first see the position occupying this area prior to the introduction of Rule 14 E of Part III of the KSR. 14. An examination of this issue would require us to first see the position occupying this area prior to the introduction of Rule 14 E of Part III of the KSR. This Rule has two components, viz; Clause (a) and Clause (b). Clause (a) relates to aided school service, whereas, Clause (b) relates to aided private college service. Clause (a) of Rule 14 E was introduced by Government Order dated 24th January, 1968, whereas, clause (b) was introduced into the statute books only as per G.O.(P) No.366/2009/Fin. dated 28.8.2009 to take effect from the 30th July, 1979. This date, viz; 30.7.1979 is not one that was adopted in random, but has an intrinsic connection with the earlier government orders occupying the field. 15. Prior to the introduction of Rule 14 E (b), there was no statutory prescription with respect to the prior aided private college service for pensionary benefits. For the first time in the year 1976, as per a Government order No.33357/B2/75/H.Edn., dated 30.3.1976, broken spells of approved service was directed to be reckoned for calculating the service for the purpose of retirement benefits. Subsequently, a government order No. G.O. No. 191/77/H.Edn., dated 5.12.1977, was issued wherein it was provided that private college service of Government teachers will be counted for retirement benefits subject to the three conditions mentioned therein, ie; (a) only in the institutions brought under the direct payment system. (b) only the actual service in private colleges will count and (c) that the service in private colleges prior to resignation for taking up government appointment will be counted provided that the break is not exceeding the joining time. This government order also provides very clearly that only the actual period of regular full time service would count for these benefits. This order was followed by another government order No.670/79/Fin. dated 30.07.1979, whereby it was ordered that the prior service of government employees, as teaching and non-teaching staff of private colleges, would be counted for pensionary benefits only subject to the conditions laid down in the government order dated 5.12.1977 aforementioned. This government order was succeeded by a new order, G.O.(MS)No.49/81/G.Edn dated 19.3.1981, which mandated that the prior service in private colleges will be counted for pension only on the same conditions laid down in the government order dated 30.7.1979. This government order was succeeded by a new order, G.O.(MS)No.49/81/G.Edn dated 19.3.1981, which mandated that the prior service in private colleges will be counted for pension only on the same conditions laid down in the government order dated 30.7.1979. Finally, by an order, viz; G.O.(P) No.319/85/Fin dated 5.6.1985, it was prescribed that prior government service of private college staff and aided school staff would also be counted for pension. 16. It is in the perspective of the above narration that the date 30.7.1979, which is the date on which Section 14 E (b) was introduced on the statute books, would assume relevance. It does not require much of an expatiation to understand that Section 14E was brought into effect with effect from the date on which Government order No.670/79/Fin. dated 30.7.1979 was brought into effect. In other words, Rule 14 E (b) was intended to substitute all the government orders that held the field prior to it and to introduce common and certain parameters/conditions for the purpose of counting of the prior aided private college service. Therefore, it is irrefragable that the contention of the appellants herein, that they are still entitled to the benefit of the prior government orders, beginning from the first order of the year 1976 and ending with one of the year 1985 as aforementioned, would obtain no legal favour at all, since the whole field is now covered by Rule 14 E (b) of Part III of the KSR. 17. Looking at it from this perspective, it is obvious that the appellants therein had not placed the correct facts or the precise position in law before the learned Division Bench which considered Jayasree P. (supra), which lead it to the inaccurate impression that only the provisions of Rule 33 of Part I, Chapter IV of KSR would be applicable in such cases. It is now ineluctable that, this is not the real position and that the field is now occupied, as we already said above, exclusively by Rule 14 E (b) of the KSR. It is now ineluctable that, this is not the real position and that the field is now occupied, as we already said above, exclusively by Rule 14 E (b) of the KSR. As long as the appellants have chosen not to challenge this Rule and so long as they accept that this is the Rule that applies to the scenario presented herein, it is luculent that the conclusions in Jayasree P. (Supra) was solely on account of the failure of the appellants in those cases to place before this Court the true circumstances, both factual and legal. We, therefore, feel that we are fully justified in being guided to a view that we need not be manacled or governed by the holdings in Jayasree P. (supra) and that it will not operate as a precedent on account of this specific reason. This is singularly so because no error has been really committed by this Court, but the blame for the rests with the appellants therein who chose not to place the true and correct legal setting before this Court. 18. Once we derive as above, then the sole residual issue is whether the petitioners in these cases would obtain locus to challenge the impugned orders of the Government, dated 9.5.2016 and 5.8.2016, copies of which have been placed on record as Exts.P6 and P7 respectively, along with the papers in W.P.(C) No.29356 of 2016, from which W.A.No.2089 of 2017 arises. On a reading of these orders, we cannot subscribe to the contentions of the appellants that these orders are in any manner stipulating or placing new criterion or conditions with respect to the reckoning of the private service of the petitioners/appellants in aided private colleges. In fact, a close reading of these orders, makes it perspicuous that what has been done by the government therein is only to virtually reiterate and restate the principles prescribed by Rule 14 E (b) of Part III of the KSR and nothing else. These orders are thus, at best, clarifactory in nature and cannot be seen to be in any manner contrary to the terms of the statute. 19. These orders are thus, at best, clarifactory in nature and cannot be seen to be in any manner contrary to the terms of the statute. 19. In any event of the matter, it is now well settled in law that no executive order can be issued in a manner to be contrarian or conflicting to the statutory prescriptions and anything in these two orders contrary to Rule 14 E (b) of Part III of KSR cannot be sustained in law. The said, the truth is that a reading of the orders do not show it to be contrary to the terms of the statute and therefore, we are guided to the firm opinion that the contentions of the appellants against these orders are completely unsustainable, taking into account of the fact that they do no more than, merely restate and ingeminate the criterion laid down in the provisions of the Rule itself. 20. In such view of the matter, we are certain in our opinion that the judgment of the learned Single, impugned before us, does not suffer from any infirmity or error in jurisdiction and we are, therefore are compelled to dismiss these appeals, confirming the same. 21. At this point of time, Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.2516 of 2017 and Sri.B.Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.2513 of 2017 submit before us that in the writ petitions involved in the appeals, the petitioners have both aided school service and private college service. They, therefore, submit that a line may be added in this judgment that the petitioners therein are entitled to reckon their aided school service for the purpose of pensionary benefits under Rule 14 E (a) of Part III of the KSR, as has been approved by this Court in W.P.(C) No.20495 of 2013, which was subsequently confirmed by this court in W.A.No.377 of 2015 and against which even though an S.L.P was preferred, it was dismissed. We find sufficient substantial force in these submissions, but also notice that the learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, made sufficient protection for this purpose. We find sufficient substantial force in these submissions, but also notice that the learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, made sufficient protection for this purpose. However, for the sake of clarity, we direct that if any of the petitioners in these cases have aided school service prior to their joining the government service, that shall be reckoned strictly in terms of Rule 14 E (a) of Part III of the KSR and that nothing contained in this judgment shall be seen to be in any manner interdicting such liberty. These appeals are thus disposed of.