JUDGMENT : The prayer in the afore captioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows:- {See page No. 7 of the paper book of this O.P.(KAT)}. “....to set aside Ext.P2 order dated 24.05.2019 in O.A.(EKM) No.264 of 2019, on the file of the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam by allowing this Original Petition.” 2. Heard Sri. B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala and four others) in the O.P./respondents 1 to 5 in the O.A. and Sri.Murali Pallath, the learned Advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P./ sole original applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. The respondent herein, who is the original applicant, had filed Ext.P-1 original application, O.A.(Ekm) No.264 of 2019 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench with the following prayers.{See page No. 20 of the paper book of this O.P.(KAT)}. “(i) Orders to set aside Annexure A10 and Annexure A12. (ii) Orders declaring that the applicant is entitled to reckon his part time service from 04.04.2008 to 24.07.2009 for pensionary benefits. (iii) Orders declaring that the applicant is entitled for 10 years as qualifying service for pensionary benefits reckoning his part time service in the Panchayat department from 04.04.2008 to 06.06.2009 (one year, two months and 3 days) also as qualifying service. (iv) orders directing the 4th and 5th respondents to revise the pensionary benefits of the applicant by reckoning his part time service in the panchayat department also as qualifying service for pension modifying Annexure A6 and Annexure A6(a) and allow all consequential benefits including commutation amount and arrears of pension.” 4. The Tribunal has, as per the impugned Ext. (iv) orders directing the 4th and 5th respondents to revise the pensionary benefits of the applicant by reckoning his part time service in the panchayat department also as qualifying service for pension modifying Annexure A6 and Annexure A6(a) and allow all consequential benefits including commutation amount and arrears of pension.” 4. The Tribunal has, as per the impugned Ext. P2 final order rendered on 24.05.2019 in O.A.No264 of 2019, ordered in paragraph 5 on internal page No.5 thereof that the applicant is entitled to succeed and that 50% of his part time contingent service in the Panchayat department is liable to be considered along with his regular service in the Health Services Department for reckoning the qualifying service for pension and accordingly, impugned order Annexure A-12 has been set aside and the 5th respondent in the O.A., the Accountant General (A&E) Kerala, has been directed to revive Annexures A9, A9(a) and A9(b) orders, i.e. pension payment order, commutation payment order and gratuity payment order and to ensure that the pensionary benefits sanctioned as per the above said orders is disbursed to the petitioner with arrears thereof, within a period of four months from the date of that order. The directions of the Tribunal contained in paragraph 5 Exhibit P-2 are as follows:- “5. The applicant is therefore entitled to succeed. 50% of the part time contingent service of the applicant in the Panchayat department is therefore eligible to be considered along with the regular service in the Health Services Department for reckoning the qualifying service for pension. Accordingly Annexure A12 order is hereby set aside. There will be a direction to the 5th respondent to revive Annexures A9, A9(a) and A9(b) orders, i.e. pension payment order, commutation payment order and gratuity payment order and to ensure that the pensionary benefits sanctioned as per the above orders is disbursed to the applicant with arrears thereof within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. The applicant had commenced his service as part time librarian in the Panchayat department on 04.04.2008 and his services were regularized by order dated 17.10.2008. While continuing his service in the Panchayat department, the applicant had secured an inter district/inter department service to the Health Services department where he has joined duty as part time sweeper on 07.06.2009. The applicant had commenced his service as part time librarian in the Panchayat department on 04.04.2008 and his services were regularized by order dated 17.10.2008. While continuing his service in the Panchayat department, the applicant had secured an inter district/inter department service to the Health Services department where he has joined duty as part time sweeper on 07.06.2009. His service was regularized and thereafter promoted as Hospital Attendant Grade II. He was also granted promotion as Hospital Attendant Grade I and further promotion as Nursing Assistant from which post he had retired from service on 30.04.2018. Initially on his retirement, the applicant was sanctioned only ex gratia pension on the ground that the applicant did not have the minimum qualifying service of ten years for the grant of statutory pension. The qualifying service for pension was then arrived at without reckoning 50% of his part time service in the Panchayat Department. 6. Thereafter, pursuant to Annexure.A7 representation submitted by the applicant, by Annexure A7 (a), the Accountant General had reckoned his part time service in the Panchayat Department for reckoning the qualifying service for pension and ordered that the pensionary benefits of the applicant should be revised by reckoning 50% of his part time service in the Panchayat Department for the purpose of determining his qualifying pensionary service. He thereupon ordered that the applicant had service of 9 years 5 months and 1 day which is rounded off to 10 years as per the provisions of the KSR part III and hence the applicant was eligible for the grant of the minimum statutory pension. This has been sanctioned and admitted by the Accountant General as per Ext. A9 pension payment order dated 25.10.2018, Annexure A9(a) commutation payment order dated 25.10.2018 and Annexure A9(b) gratuity payment order dated 25.10.2018. Thus it was ordered that the applicant was entitled for monthly pension at the rate of Rs.8,500/-per month and DCRG amount of Rs.13,110/-and commuted value of pension at Rs.4,52,880/-. Later, the 2nd respondent in the O.A., the 2nd petitioner herein, (the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department) has issued Annexure A-10 communication dated 17.10.2018 intimating the Accountant General that the part-time service of the applicant in the Panchayat Department cannot be reckoned along with his regular service in Health Services department in view of Rule 14A of Part III KSR. The said proceedings has been issued by the Government as Annexure A-10 without affording any opportunity of being heard to the applicant. So also, the Accountant General, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the applicant, has canceled Annexure A-9 series of orders and ordered that the applicant can secure only originally sanctioned ex gratia pension and not the subsequently sanctioned minimum statutory pension. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Government and his request for minimum statutory pension was rejected as per impugned Annexure A-12 order dated 11.01.2019 issued by the competent authority to the Government. It was in the light of these aspects, the applicant has filed Ext. P1 O.A. challenging Annexure A-12 proceedings with the aforementioned prayers. 7. The Tribunal after considering the matter in depth has held that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Vijayalakshmi v. State of Kerala [ 2014 (3) KLT 925 ]. Rule 14A of Part III KSR reads as follows:- “14A. Contingent employees absorbed in regular establishment will be allowed to count 50 per cent of the contingency service for purpose of pension. Provided that this rule will apply to case of retirements from 2nd September 1957 only (irrespective of the date of absorption of such employees into regular establishment). In cases of retirements on or after 1st April, 1968 the entire full time contingency service will count for pension. Explanation – Periods of officiating / temporary service in regular establishment and / or periods of work establishment service interpose between periods of contingency service will be treated as contingency service.” 8. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court found that the Government had issued a letter to the Director of Panchayats as per Ext.P3 therein that while calculating pensionary benefits of those employees having contingent service in Panchayat prior to the appointment in regular service, 50% of their part time contingent service has to be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. This was so ordered by the Government on the basis of the norms contained in G.O.(P) No.356/94/Fin. dated 27.05.1994 and G.O.(p) No.506/95/Fin dated 22.08.1995 wherein orders have been issued for reckoning 50% of the part time contingency service in combination to the regular service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 14A of Part III KSR). This was so ordered by the Government on the basis of the norms contained in G.O.(P) No.356/94/Fin. dated 27.05.1994 and G.O.(p) No.506/95/Fin dated 22.08.1995 wherein orders have been issued for reckoning 50% of the part time contingency service in combination to the regular service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 14A of Part III KSR). {See paragraph 16 of Vijayalakshmi's case (supra) [ 2014 (3) KLT 925 p.929]}. 9. In the facts of the Vijayalakshmi's case (supra), it can be seen that the petitioner therein had initially entered the service as Part-time Librarian in the erstwhile Panchayat Common Service on 17.03.1978 and later she was transferred and promoted as Bill Collector on 14.11.1984 in the Panchayat Common Service, which was a full time post in that service. While the petitioner therein was continuing as Bill Collector in Panchayat Service she had secured appointment as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Collegiate Education Department, as per the advice memo issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission and she had joined duty in the Collegiate Education Department as LDC on 09.05.1986 and later she was promoted as UDC and while continuing as such, she retired from service on 31.12.2004, on attaining superannuation. The Division Bench of this Court held therein that 50% of her part – time contingent service of the petitioner therein could be reckoned for determining the qualifying service for pension consequent to the retirement of the incumbent from the Collegiate Education Department. 10. The Division Bench also dealt with the contention raised by the respondents therein based on a judgment rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in Abdul Kader v. Accounts Officer [ 2006 (4) KLT 515 ]. The Division Bench has noted in Vijayalakshmi's case (supra) that a reading of paragraph 3 of the judgment of the Single Bench in Abdul Kader’s case (supra) clearly indicate that the incumbent therein had initially joined service as part time contingent sweeper in a Government School on 10.10.1964 and later he was resigned from the service of the school on 12.02.1969. Thereafter, he joined the Public Health Engineering Department, as a Peon, as advised by the Public Service Commission on 13.02.1969. Thereafter, he was absorbed by the Kerala Water Authority and he retired on attaining superannuation on 31.10.2002. Thereafter, he joined the Public Health Engineering Department, as a Peon, as advised by the Public Service Commission on 13.02.1969. Thereafter, he was absorbed by the Kerala Water Authority and he retired on attaining superannuation on 31.10.2002. Hence, the Division Bench of this Court in Vijayalakshmi's case (supra) has held that in Abdul Kader’s case (supra), the petitioner therein who was working as a part time sweeper in a Government School was never absorbed in regular service etc. Thus, the Division Bench has implicitly distinguished the decision contained in Abdul Kader’s case (supra) and ultimately ordered that the petitioner in Vijayalakshmi's case (supra) is entitled to succeed and that 50% of his part time contingency service is to be reckoned for the purpose of determining his qualifying service for statutory pension. It is on the basis of the above said dictum laid down by the Vijayalakshmi's case (supra) that the Tribunal has now rendered the impugned Ext.P2 order, whereby it has been directed that the original stand of the Accountant General in having ordered 50% of the part time contingency service of the petitioner herein was correct and that the subsequent decision to cancel the said original orders issued by the Accountant General in favour of applicant cannot be justified in law and hence quashed the impugned orders and has ordered the revival of pension payment order, commutation payment orders and gratuity payment orders initially ordered by the Accountant General in Annexure A-9 series to be revived and to give the consequential benefits to the petitioner on that basis. 11. After hearing both sides, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality or perversity in arriving at the aforesaid considered conclusions and issuing the above said directions on the basis of the dictum laid down by Vijayalakshmi's case (supra), in the facts and circumstances of this case. The substance of the above said approval in favour of the part time contingency employee is that 50% of the part time service could be reckoned only for the limited purpose of determining the qualifying pensionary service, even though the incumbent has been later regularly appointed in another department of the Government. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said approach of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said approach of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The petitioners have not made out any grounds for successfully invoking the discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to reconsider or to interdict the verdict of the Tribunal. 12. However, we note that the impugned Ext. P2 final order was rendered by the Tribunal as early as on 24.05.2019 and the time limit for compliance with the directions therein has expired long ago. The present O.P.(KAT) was filed before this Court on 23.09.2020. In view of the long delay in the matter, giving a consideration that the petitioner is a low paid employee, is now a pensioner is ordered that the petitioners shall comply with the directions of the Tribunal in Exhibit P-2, without any further delay, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The counsel for the applicant/respondent herein may forward the copies of the judgment to the petitioners herein for necessary information and immediate further action in compliance. The Secretary to the Office of the Advocate General shall ensure that copies of the judgment are urgently forwarded to all the petitioners for immediate action. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition stand dismissed.