JUDGMENT : 1. The question arising in these appeals against the common judgment in the writ petitions is limited. The limited question is, as to whether provisional service in an aided school, on leave vacancy can be counted for pension when the said incumbent later joins regular service in an aided college or an aided school. The learned Single Judge found the same to be permissible. The learned Single Judge is said to have distinguished a Division Bench judgment in Alizuamma vs. Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General, 2013 (4) KLT 53 . The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court which categorically held that no claim for treating the period of service in a leave vacancy, for the purpose of pension, can be entertained. The Government Orders set aside by the learned Single Judge ought to have been sustained, is the contention. 2. We notice from the impugned judgment that there were two sets of writ petitions: (i) retired aided school teachers who had earlier worked in aided schools in broken spells on leave vacancies and (ii) retired teachers of private colleges, obviously under the direct payment agreement, who also likewise worked in aided schools as leave substitutes. They asserted that the Kerala Service Rules by Rule 14E provided for counting of such broken service even in leave vacancies. 3. We find from a reading of the judgment in Alizuamma that there was no reason to have distinguished the said judgment of the Division Bench which was authored by one of us [K. Vinod Chandran, J.]. Therein, the teacher was appointed regularly as Upper Primary School Assistant ["UPSA" for short] in an aided school in 1981 and had about 17 years regular service when she retired in 1998. Prior to joining regular service, she had service of various broken periods in aided schools, between 1974 and 1981. The teacher claimed that since she had broken spells of service within a period of 7 years, the entire 7 years have to be reckoned for the purpose of pension. Hence, the teacher claimed for 24 years qualifying service while the Government granted only 20 years. Government took 17 years regular service and computed the period of actual service on leave vacancies. Obviously in the said case the period of leave vacancy, was reckoned for the purpose of pension. Hence, the teacher claimed for 24 years qualifying service while the Government granted only 20 years. Government took 17 years regular service and computed the period of actual service on leave vacancies. Obviously in the said case the period of leave vacancy, was reckoned for the purpose of pension. 4. Again, the Government seems to be labouring under a misapprehension that the Division Bench found that there can be no claim entertained for treating the service in leave vacancies as qualifying service for pension. The Division Bench specifically found that under Rule 31 of Kerala Service Rules ["KSR" for brevity] Part III, there could be no reckoning of the period spent in a leave vacancy for qualifying service. This was since Rule 31 spoke of interruptions in service, which service contemplated was found to be regular service. However, the Division Bench itself referred to Rule 14E of Part III KSR, by which aided school service put in by Government employees, prior to entry in Government service, qualifies for pension. 5. We also notice paragraph 4 of the aforesaid decision, which found a distinction insofar as Rule 31 and Rule 14E. Reliance can also be placed on Government Decision No. 8 under Rule 14E, which was extracted by the Division Bench and which is as follows: “8(i) The benefit of counting periods of break as per Note 3 below R.31, Part III, Kerala Service Rules will be allowed in cases where the appointment before the break was not provisional or for limited period and the break was due to reduction of staff strength of the institution. (ii) In cases covered by (i) above the actual period of service excluding the periods of break will be reckoned for qualifying service. (iii) In cases covered by (i) above the certificate that termination of appointment was due to reduction of staff strength of the institution should be countersigned by the pension sanctioning authority or Head of the Departments.” 6. Government Decision No. 8(i) extracted above specifically referred to Note 3 below Rule 31 and again reckoned only regular service, even if there was a break. For example, due to reduction of staff strength in the institution. However Decision No. 8(ii) specifically spoke of cases not covered by (i) in which the actual period of service excluding the periods of break would be reckoned for qualifying service. For example, due to reduction of staff strength in the institution. However Decision No. 8(ii) specifically spoke of cases not covered by (i) in which the actual period of service excluding the periods of break would be reckoned for qualifying service. This is what was granted by the Government to the teacher in Alizuamma and also allowed by the learned Single Judge in the common judgment. We, hence, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge could not have distinguished Alizuamma. We find that Alizuamma also advanced the same proposition. 7. The writ appeals would stand dismissed. No costs.