JUDGMENT : P.V. Asha, J. 1. Petitioner, who retired from service as a Part Time Sweeper while working in Amaravila Branch of the Syndicate Bank at Neyyattinkara, is aggrieved by the denial of pension reckoning his temporary service also towards qualifying service. 2. Petitioner commenced his service as a Part Time Sweeper under the Syndicate Bank on 28.03.1994. He claims that he continued without any break till his retirement. Relying on Ext. P3 communication, petitioner points out that he was engaged on temporary basis from 31.01.2000 onwards. Ext. P3 is a letter addressed to the Bank Manager, Balaramapuram from the Zonal Office advising that the service of the petitioner can be utilised as temporary Part Time Sweeper as he is a baddli Part Time Sweeper, on payment of wages on monthly basis taking into account the area of sweeping. According to petitioner, he was thereafter engaged as temporary Part Time Sweeper. Petitioner was confirmed as a permanent Part Time Sweeper as per Ext. P4 order with effect from 11.08.2008 onwards. Petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2014, at a time when he had only 6 years of service after his confirmation as a permanent Part Time Sweeper. Though petitioner thereupon submitted representations requesting for pensionary benefits, there was no positive action. Therefore he filed this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to grant him pension and pensionary benefits reckoning his service as a Part Time Sweeper on temporary basis from 28.03.1994 to 10.08.2008 along with his service from 11.08.2008 to 31.10.2014. Petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Clause 3(i) in Ext. P8 scheme does not distinguish temporary employees and permanent employees for the purpose of granting pension. 3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit, stating that petitioner was engaged in leave vacancies of Regular Part Time Sweepers in different branches from 28.03.1994 onwards purely on temporary basis and was made permanent only in the year 11.08.2008. It is stated that as per the Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short 'Regulation 1995'), petitioner is not eligible for pension since he has not completed 10 years of service in the Bank as on the date of retirement. It is stated that as per the Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short 'Regulation 1995'), petitioner is not eligible for pension since he has not completed 10 years of service in the Bank as on the date of retirement. Pointing out Regulation 14 and 15, respondents stated that the service rendered by petitioner prior to his appointment on permanent basis is not liable to be reckoned towards qualifying service and qualifying service starts only with effect from the date one takes charge on his appointment on permanent basis. Therefore, it is stated that petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits. It is stated that the representations submitted by the petitioner were not considered, since petitioner is not eligible for pension. 4. Even though, Sri D. Kishore, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Ext. P8 scheme does not distinguish employees on the basis of the nature of appointment for the purpose of grant of pension, relying on Clause 3 of Ext. P8, it is seen that the provisions contained in Regulations 1995 are different from what the petitioner has produced as Ext. P8. In Ext. P8, Clause 3 provides that an employee who renders a minimum of 10 years of service on the date of retirement on superannuation is eligible for pension. It also provides that broken period of service of more than 6 months shall be treated as one year. Ext. P8 is the relevant portion from a Hand Book issued by the Personnel Department of the Syndicate Bank. 5. On directions to produce the pension scheme which is applicable to the employees of the respondents Bank, the respondents have produced the Regulations 1995. Ext. P8 is the relevant portion from a Hand Book issued by the Personnel Department of the Syndicate Bank. 5. On directions to produce the pension scheme which is applicable to the employees of the respondents Bank, the respondents have produced the Regulations 1995. As per this Regulations 1995, 'employee' is defined under Clause 2(n) as: "employee means any person employed in the service of the Bank, whether as a workman on full time work on permanent basis or on part time work on permanent basis on scale wages or an officer who opts and is governed by these regulations, but does not include a person employed either on contract basis or daily or daily wages or on consolidated wages." Clause (w) defines "qualifying service to mean the service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension under the regulations." As per Clause 14 relied on by the respondents, which defines qualifying service, an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension, subject to the other conditions in the regulation. As per Clause 15, qualifying service of an employee shall commence from the date on which he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed on a permanent basis. Therefore the service rendered on appointment on permanent basis alone can be reckoned towards qualifying service. As per Clause 27 an employee employed on permanent part time basis and was contributing to provident fund, such service rendered can be counted as qualifying service. However, it is pointed out that the petitioner has not made any contribution to the provident fund before he was made permanent. Clause 56 is a residuary provision which reads as follows: "56 Residuary Provisions: In case of doubt, in the matter of application of these regulations, regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time, determine." 6. Though the petitioner claimed that service rendered is continuous from 28.03.1994, it is seen that he was engaged as badaly Part time Sweeper as on the date of Ext. P3 in 2000. However, Ext. P3 would also show that petitioner was engaged on temporary basis at least from 2000 onwards and had been continuing as temporary Part Time Sweeper till his permanent appointment in the year 2008. Clause 56 provides that provisions applicable under the Central Civil Services Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 can also be referred to in the event of any doubt in the matter of application of these regulations. The regulations as such do not provide for pension to a temporary employee. However, in view of the fact that petitioner has been continuously working from 1994 onwards as a Badali and as temporary worker since 2000 till his permanent appointment in 2008, it is only just and proper on the part of respondents to consider whether at least half of the temporary service rendered by him since 2000 can be reckoned along with his regular service on permanent appointment in 2008, so as to enable him to draw pension. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, ex-gratia pension is admissible to those who retire from service under the Government of Kerala with shortage of minimum qualifying service reckoning their the provisional service along with regular service. Therefore, petitioner is free to submit a representation before the first respondent explaining his grievances and first respondent shall consider his request after affording him an opportunity of hearing, taking a lenient and liberal view, in view of the fact that petitioner is left without any source of livelihood despite service rendered by him from 1994 onwards. This shall be done within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.