JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The correctness and sustainability of Ext.P2 verdict passed by the Tribunal declining interference with regard to Annexure A10 order passed by the State is under challenge at the instance of the applicant. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. The petitioner herein joined the Department of Health Services and was working as Head Nurse. Annexure A1 is the appointment order dated 10.07.1990. Shortly after one month of her joining service, she availed Leave Without Allowance as per Annexure A2 on 24.08.1990. Later, she rejoined duty as per Annexure A3 dated 17.12.1998. Extension was not granted after the expiry of the leave period. However, the period from 23.09.1995 to 14.10.1997, was regularised as per Annexure A4 order dated 28.07.1991 and the subsequent period from 15.10.1997 to 23.12.1998 was regularised as per Annexure A6 order dated 18.12.2006. 4. After rejoining duty as above, the probation was completed as per Annexure A5 w.e.f. F.N. of 03.05.2001. In the course of time, the benefit of the first Higher Grade was sanctioned to the petitioner as per Annexure A7 dated 20.05.2007, i.e. on completion of 8 years and thereafter, the second Higher Grade was given w.e.f. 24.12.2010 as per Annexure A8 dated 02.08.2011. The benefit of the second Higher Grade given was subsequently noted as a mistake and hence it was sought to be withdrawn as per Annexure A10 dated 25.01.2017, ordering re-fixation w.e.f. 24.12.2013. This was with reference to the entry in service pursuant to rejoining duty on 24.12.1998. As per Annexure A10, the Government gave necessary directions to the Director to pass consequential order by way of Annexure A11, which made the petitioner to feel aggrieved, who challenged Annexures A10 and A11 by approaching the Tribunal as per O.A. 577 of 2017. 5. The course of action pursued by the State/Department was justified from their part and after hearing both the sides, it was declared by the Tribunal that there was nothing wrong on the part of the departmental authorities in having re-fixed the date of eligibility for the second Higher Grade. However, with regard to the challenge raised by the petitioner as to the right of recovery, the coercive step was interdicted by placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White-Washer) etc [ AIR 2015 SC 696 ]. However, with regard to the challenge raised by the petitioner as to the right of recovery, the coercive step was interdicted by placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White-Washer) etc [ AIR 2015 SC 696 ]. The verdict, to the extent it stands detrimental to the rights and interests of the petitioner, is under challenge in this O.P. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue has not been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. It is contended that the provisional service rendered by the petitioner prior to regularisation given in the year 1990, is liable to be reckoned, as the regularisation was much prior to 01.10.1994, i.e. before deletion of 'Government decision No.2' to Rule 33 Part I KSR, (deleting the provision for counting of provisional service for the purpose of granting service benefits). The nature of contention raised in this regard is that the petitioner was having a provisional service of nearly one year from 28.05.1986 to 27.05.1987 and thereafter from 13.09.1987 to 20.07.1990 and on the very next day , she was regularised in service pursuant to the advice given by the PSC. By virtue of the then relevant provisions of law, even the provisional service was liable to be reckoned as part of the service for the purpose of granting the increments, by virtue of Government Decision No.2 under Rule 33 Part I KSR. It is true that the said decision came to be deleted as per Annexure A9 G.O [G.O.(P)540/94/Fin dated 30.09.1994]. But the very same G.O clearly stipulates that, if the regularisation is prior to the cutoff date, i.e. 01.10.1994, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit to have the said service reckoned. In the instant case, since there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was regularised in the year 1990, the orders impugned before the Tribunal were not correct or sustainable in law. In the instant case, since there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was regularised in the year 1990, the orders impugned before the Tribunal were not correct or sustainable in law. Reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict passed by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Ponnamma [ 2005 (4) KLT 987 (FB)], wherein it has been categorically stated that, if the service is regularised prior to the cutoff date, Annexure A9 G.O., i.e. consequent to deletion of Decision No.2 under Rule 33 of the Part I of KSR, will not be applicable and that the benefits could be extended to such persons. It is pointed out that the petitioner belongs to said stream and hence the issue has not been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal, who has taken a decision virtually against the 'ruling' rendered by the Full Bench of this Court and hence the challenge. 7. The learned Govt. Pleader points out that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is thoroughly wrong and misconceived, in so far as the verdict passed by the Tribunal is with specific reference to Rule 5 of the Appendix XIIA of Part I KSR, i.e., as to the course to be pursued when an employee avails Leave Without Allowance before completion of probation and as to how service of such employee on rejoining duty has to be reckoned. The Full Bench verdict says that, if the person has been regularised in service prior to the cutoff date, the deletion of Decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part I KSR brought about as per Annexure A9, cannot have any significance. 8. By virtue of the undisputed facts, it is true that the service of the petitioner was regularised prior to the said date and as such, normally, the petitioner would have been entitled to the benefit of the Full Bench decision. But further probe is necessary with regard to the course and events, especially with regard to the Leave Without Allowance availed by the petitioner. As mentioned already, the petitioner joined the service on 21.07.1990 and shortly after one month, she had sought for and obtained LWA, which was sanctioned as per Annexure A2. The extension sought for from 23.09.1995 was not granted and the same was rejected by the Government. There is no dispute in this regard as well. As mentioned already, the petitioner joined the service on 21.07.1990 and shortly after one month, she had sought for and obtained LWA, which was sanctioned as per Annexure A2. The extension sought for from 23.09.1995 was not granted and the same was rejected by the Government. There is no dispute in this regard as well. It was accordingly, that the petitioner rejoined duty pursuant to Annexure A3 on 24.12.1998. The question is whether the period of service rendered by the petitioner based on the earlier regularisation in service prior to 01.10.1994, is also to be reckoned or whether the service to be reckoned is only such service pursuant to rejoining the duty i.e. from 24.12.1998. 9. Rule 5 of Appendix 12A of Part I KSR comes into play in this regard, which reads as follows: “5. Non-permanent officers in the regular service who have not completed probation in the entry cadre shall be granted Leave Without Allowances subject to the condition that such officers will have to start their probation afresh and complete their probation on return from Leave Without Allowances. Such officers will forfeit the service benefits that have accrued to them prior to their proceeding on Leave Without Allowances and they will be deemed as new entrants to Government Service on return from Leave Without Allowances. Their right to rejoin Government service in the same entry cadre is protected, as if they were new entrants. On further verification by the Kerala Public Service Commission/the Police Department, if it is found that the officer is ineligible for appointment, the appointment shall be treated as null and void and the Leave Without Allowances shall be treated as cancelled from the date of sanction of leave.” 10. The above rule clearly stipulates that in the circumstances as involved in the instant case, while Leave Without Allowance was availed before declaration of probation, the employee, on rejoining duty, will be treated as a new entrant. This is to the effect that, whatever benefit she has already accrued will be lost and the right reserved as per the said rule is only to rejoin duty in the same cadre and nothing else. There is no dispute to the legal provision and the rule is not subjected to challenge. This is to the effect that, whatever benefit she has already accrued will be lost and the right reserved as per the said rule is only to rejoin duty in the same cadre and nothing else. There is no dispute to the legal provision and the rule is not subjected to challenge. In so far as the said rule stands, even if the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the prior service by virtue of declaration of law by the Full Bench as per the decision in State of Kerala vs. Ponnamma [ 2005 (4) KLT 987 (FB)], [as that the deletion of Decision No.2 as per Annexure A9 G.O. will be having only prospective effect and regularisation of the petitioner was prior to the said date (i.e. 01.10.1994)], Rule 5 to Appendix XII A, Part I KSR creates a separate hurdle, which cannot be crossed by the petitioner, by virtue of the fact that there is no dispute as to the factual position as to the availing of leave without allowance before completion of probation. This separate hurdle and its scope have been considered and analysed by the Tribunal. It is in the said circumstance, that the verdict passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court in J. Sreekala vs., State of Kerala and another [ 2007(1) KLT 903 ] has been relied on, which clearly speaks about the right flowing from Rule 5 of Appendix XII A (as it then existed), which is to the effect that only the right to rejoin duty in the same cadre is protected and that the question of seniority claimed in the said case was never liable to be acceded to. This Court finds that the legal provision does not suffer from any obscurity and so far as the Rule is specific and clear that a person, who has proceeded on Leave Without Allowance without getting the probation declared, has to rejoin duty only as a new entrant, all the past service of the petitioner has virtually vanished and she can be treated only as a new entrant, having joined duty only on 24.12.1998. In the said circumstance, the requisite period for granting the first Higher Grade and so also for the second Higher Grade have to be counted from that date, which alone has been done by the departmental authorities (by rectifying the mistake already caused pursuant to Annexure A9), by passing Annexure A10. This has been rightly upheld by the Tribunal and interference has been declined. It is also relevant to note that the challenge against the recovery of monetary benefit already disbursed has been upheld, in so far as the steps in this regard have been interdicted by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the law declared by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [ (2015)4 SCC 334 ]. There is no challenge with regard to the right of recovery from the part of the State. In the above circumstance, we declare that the challenge raised by the petitioner against the verdict passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.577 of 2017 is not correct or sustainable. Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal is in no way contrary to the law declared by the Full Bench or the relevant provisions of law. Interference is declined and the Original Petition is dismissed.