JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The partially unsuccessful petitioner in the Writ Petition (Civil), W.P. (C) No. 35379/2018 has instituted the instant intra court appeal under Section 59(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, so as to impugn the judgment dated 01.03.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the said W.P. (C) to challenge the same to the limited extent, it has not allowed the main plea of the appellant, after having found that the impugned rejection order was illegal and in having remitted the matter. 2. Heard Sri. M.P. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the WA/petitioner in the W.P. (C) Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala and Sri. P. Benjamin Paul, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The appellant herein has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P. (C) No. 35379/2018 with the following prayers [See Page 54 of the paper-book of this Writ Appeal]: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction calling for the records leading to issue of Exhibit-P12 order and to quash the same. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner as NMR Operator with effect from 1.4.1979 with monetary benefits from 4.8.1977. (iii) Grant any other reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.” 4. The order under challenge in the above writ proceedings is one at Ext.P-12 dated 14.06.2018 issued by the 1st respondent-Government, whereby the main plea of the appellant that he should be regularized as Non Muster roll (NMR) in the skilled category of Pump Operator in the service of the Kerala Water Authority with effect from 01.04.1979 and not in the unskilled category of Watchman, has been rejected. The appellant had initially joined service of the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) as a Casual Labour Roll (CLR) worker in the year 1975 and later, the said Government Department was vested with the statutorily created Kerala Water Authority by an Act passed by the State Legislature in that regard. Thereafter, the appellant continues to be a permanent employee of the 2nd respondent-Kerala Water Authority. Thereafter, the appellant continues to be a permanent employee of the 2nd respondent-Kerala Water Authority. Going by the service particulars of the appellant disclosed in Ext.P-1, the appellant had initially entered service of the erstwhile PHE Department as CLR worker for the period from April, 1975 to September, 1977 and that at that time, he was working as CLR in the unskilled category of Watchman-cum-Valve Operator. Thereafter, the appellant was placed in the position of CLR, in the skilled category of Pump Operator (CLR Pump Operator), for the period from October, 1977 upto 31.03.1979. These aspects are evident from Ext.P-1. It is also not under any dispute that going by the number of days he has worked, as given in Ext.P-1, he has worked for the majority period during the abovesaid time in the skilled category of CLR Pump Operator. The Department had issued three series of absorption orders, the first series at Annexure-I Government Circular dated 20.03.1976 [See Page 29 to 30 of the paper-book of this Writ Appeal]. The second series of absorption were effectuated by the department as per Annexure-II order dated 23.02.1979 read with Annexure-III [See Pages 31 to 34 of the paper-book of this Writ Appeal]. The third series of absorption were effectuated by the department in terms of Ext.P-16 G.O. dated 24.02.1981 read with Ext.P-2. The appellant does not come within the former category of absorption at Annexure-I. 5. As per Annexure-II G.O. (Ms.) No. 26/79/LA&SWD dated 23.02.1979 read with Annexure-III, the competent authority of the State Government had ordered inter-alia as per Para No. 2(a) thereof about the absorption of SLR/CLR Workers into NMR. In Para No. 2(a) of Annexure- II G.O. dated 23.02.1979 read with Annexure-III, it has been ordered by the respondent-Government that it was decided on 04.08.1977 that those Seasonal Labour Roll (SLR)/Casual Labour Roll (CLR) workers, who have worked for 240 days in 12 continuous months for the period of 21.03.1972 to 04.08.1977 may be absorbed into NMR (Non Muster Roll). Further that, the Chief Engineer, PHED has furnished a list of 950 such persons. It is common ground that the name of the appellant herein has figured as one among the 950 persons in the list so finalized by the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, as referred to in Para No. 2 (a) of Annexure-II read with Annexure-III. Further that, the Chief Engineer, PHED has furnished a list of 950 such persons. It is common ground that the name of the appellant herein has figured as one among the 950 persons in the list so finalized by the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, as referred to in Para No. 2 (a) of Annexure-II read with Annexure-III. Subsequently, the Government has issued Annexure-III G.O. (Ms.) No. 26/1979/LA&SWD dated 23.02.1979 [See Page Nos. 34 and 35 of this paper-book], wherein it has been ordered that to effectuate the abovesaid decision at Annexure-II, it is ordered by the Government to absorb CLR/SLR workers, who have worked 240 days in 12 continuous months till 04.08.1977 will be absorbed into NMR category from 01.04.1979 and that they will be given service benefits with effect from 04.08.1977 without the benefit of arrears. A plain reading of the provision made out in Para No. 2 (a) of Annexure-II G.O. dated 23.02.1979 would imply that any CLR worker, who has worked in 240 days in 12 continuous months for the abovesaid period in question has to be absorbed into NMR, implying thereby that he should be absorbed into NMR of the category where he was working as CLR. Therefore, it would imply, if a CLR unskilled category of worker is to be absorbed, as per Annexure-II, then he has to be absorbed as NMR unskilled category. So also, it may imply, if a CLR skilled category worker is to be absorbed, then he/she has to be absorbed as NMR skilled category worker. However, since fine tuned clarifications were not available at that point of time, the department has taken the stand that the previous norms at Anx.I Government Circular dated 20.3.1976 will have to be applied even in the context of Anx.II benefits and that therefore going by the norms in Para 2 of Anx.I Government Circular dated 20.3.1976 if SLR/CLR workers who had worked for a total of 240 days or more in different categories during the proceeding 12 months, then he/she may be absorbed to the lowest category in which they had worked for the abovesaid period of 12 months and the minimum of pay scale may be fixed in each category as on the cut off date with admissible DA and HRA. For the sake of clarity it may be pertinent to refer to the actual contents of Para 2 of Anx.I Government Circular dated 20.3.1976 which reads as follows: [See Page 29 of the paper-book of this Writ Appeal] “SLR/CLR workers who had worked for a total of 240 days or more on the whole in different categories during the proceeding 12 months as on 20.03.73 may be absorbed into the lowest category in which they had worked during the above period of 12 months the minimum of the pay scale may be fixed to each category as on 1-4-75 with admissible DA and HRA.” 6. It is the case of the petitioner that Anx.I Government Circular dated 20.3.1976 has no application whatsoever with Anx.II, as Anx.II proceedings which are in relation to the separate set of absorption ordered later. Further that, a reading of Anx.II and the subsequent G.O. like Anx.III issued to effectuate Anx.II would clearly show that not even a reference is made in Anx.II and Anx.III etc about Anx.I Government Circular dated 20.3.1976. Further the appellant would contend that a reading of Para 2 of Anx.I Circular would make it clear that the said restriction is only in the context of absorption envisaged by that order and that is discernible from the cut off dates mentioned therein which has no application for implementing the norms in Anx.II and Anx.III. However, it appears that the Department has taken the stand that the said restriction in Para 2 of Anx.I will have to be analogously applied in the present case at Anx.II on that premise, the Government has ordered as per Anx.V dated 18.4.1979 that the petitioner who was then working as NMR in the skilled category of pump operator is to be absorbed as CLR in the unskilled category of watchman inasmuch as, going by the norms at Anx.I he has to be absorbed only in the lower category in case he has worked in two different categories during the relevant period. 7. 7. The petitioner has been agitating throughout that if the abovesaid stand of the Department is allowed to stand in the eye of law, then it would amount to even depriving him a promotion which he earned in the category of CLR in the unskilled category of watchman to the NMR skilled category of pump operator, and that he would lose the career advancement benefits under the guise of getting the so called higher benefit of regularization in terms of Anx.II and Anx.III. 8. In that regard the appellant would mainly contend that in the subsequent series of absorption effectuated by the Department as per Ext.P-16 read with Ext.P-2, it has been specifically ordered that if CLR/SLR worker has worked in 240 working days in different categories then he has to be absorbed into the category in which he has worked for the maximum number of days. [See Para 2 of Ext.P-2 given on page 58 of the paper-book of this Writ Appeal]. This was in contradistinction to the provision made as per the first series of absorption orders at Para 2 of Anx.I [See Page 29 of the paper-book of this Writ Appeal] wherein it has been stipulated that the reverse should be his case inasmuch as, if the CLR/SLR worker has worked in two different categories for the relevant period in question, then he has to be absorbed necessarily into the lower category. In that regard, the 1st respondent has taken up the plea that the benefits in terms of Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16 cannot be granted in the case of the petitioner and that virtually his case should be regulated by Para 2 of Anx.I etc. 9. The matter has been agitated by the petitioner in 3 writ proceedings and this Court has interfered in the matter by quashing the impugned rejections orders and remitting the matter to the respondent Government for reconsideration afresh. The present writ proceedings is the third writ proceedings in that regard. In all the three occasions including the present one, the plea of the petitioner has been directed to be reconsidered. The 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority has taken up the stand in Ext.P-7 letter dated 27.4.2004 addressed to the respondent State Government that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed into CLR in the unskilled category of watchman on the basis of Anx.II Government Order dated 23.2.1979. The 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority has taken up the stand in Ext.P-7 letter dated 27.4.2004 addressed to the respondent State Government that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed into CLR in the unskilled category of watchman on the basis of Anx.II Government Order dated 23.2.1979. Further that the petitioner was engaged as CLR pump operator from 10.10.1977 and that therefore he has to be absorbed as NMR in the corresponding skilled category as NMR skilled worker/pump operator in terms of Anx.II and Anx.III. The 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority has taken the stand in Ext.P-4 letter dated 26.7.2003 that the petitioner has been appointed as NMR pump operator from 10.10.1977 onwards and that therefore he may be absorbed as NMR in the skilled category of pump operator, etc. 10. In response to Ext.P-4 letter dated 26.7.2003 sent by the 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority, the 1st respondent State Government has issued Ext.P-5 Government Order dated 8.10.2003 directing the 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority to examine the case of the appellant once again and if necessary take up the matter with the Government with details and resolution. In compliance with the requirements in Ext.P-5 Government letter dated 8.10.2003, later the 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority has passed Ext.P-6 resolution in the Board Meeting dated 30.3.2004 stating that the Kerala Water Authority has resolved to the Government to absorb the petitioner to the NMR category on the basis of Anx.II and Anx.III proceedings referred to hereinabove. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent has also forwarded Ext.P-6 resolution along with Ext.P-7 letter dated 27.4.2004. In Ext.P-7, the Kerala Water Authority has taken up the definite stand that the petitioner was appointed as pump operator from 10.10.1977 and that since there was no criteria for fixing the category in which the CLR/SLR worker to be absorbed as per Anx.II G.O. he is to be absorbed as NMR in the skilled category of pump operator and thereby clearly imply that he should be absorbed not into the unskilled category of CLR watchman. However, the Government has not acted upon the said stand taken by the 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority as reflected in Exts.P-6 and P-7 which led to the petitioner initiating the previous round of litigation, etc. 11. However, the Government has not acted upon the said stand taken by the 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority as reflected in Exts.P-6 and P-7 which led to the petitioner initiating the previous round of litigation, etc. 11. After hearing both sides it has to be noted that Anx.I Government Circular dated 20.3.1976 has not been referred to or incorporated anywhere for implementation of the benefits in terms of Anx.II G.O. dated 23.2.1979 read with Anx.III G.O. Dated 27.5.1981. Moreover, a mere reading of Anx.I more particularly Para 2 thereof, would make it clear that the said restrictions were mainly in the context of said absorption done then, and even the cut off dates mentioned therein are only in relation to the said absorption envisaged in terms of Anx.I. The cut off dates covered by Anx.II and Anx.III are different, and ordinarily there is no question of applying the restrictions in Para 2 of Anx.I in the context of Anx.II and Anx.III. That apart, it may be noted that Para 2(a) of Anx.II stipulates that those CLR/SLR workers who have worked for 240 days for 12 continuous months for the period from 27.3.1972 to 4.8.1977 may be absorbed into NMR. Ordinarily it may imply that if the CLR/SLR worker was in the unskilled category then he has to be absorbed into NMR in the corresponding skilled category. However, a problem might arise in cases as in the instant one where the CLR/SLR worker has been working both in the unskilled category and the skilled category for the relevant period in question viz. for the period from 27.3.1972 to 4.8.1977. In a case where a CLR worker has been working in the skilled category for the majority period, then reasonableness and fairness would require that he/she should be absorbed as NMR in the corresponding skilled category. In the instant case, it is crystal clear from a mere reading of Ext.P-1 service particulars [given on page 57 of the paper-book of this Writ Appeal] that the petitioner was working in the CLR unskilled category of Watchman-cum-Valve operator for the period from April, 1975 to September, 1977. Thereafter, for the period from April, 1978 to March, 1979 he has been working as CLR in the skilled category of Pump Operator. 12. Thereafter, for the period from April, 1978 to March, 1979 he has been working as CLR in the skilled category of Pump Operator. 12. In that regard it is also relevant to bear in mind that the 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority has issued Ext.P-13 letter dated 29.10.1997 stating that the appointment as NMR operator from the unskilled category is a promotion and not a transfer appointment, and all such grade promotions granted to them on completion of 10, 18, 23, 28 years of service are regulated in the post of unskilled category. In the instant case, it is common ground for both sides that there are no definite norms as to how the present situation could be tackled for implementing the benefits as per Anx.II and Anx.III. The 1st respondent takes the stand that the restriction envisaged in Para 2 of Anx.I Government Circular will apply in the present case. The case of the petitioner is that the said restriction in Anx.I will not apply in present case and that the norms in terms of Ext.P-16 read with Ext.P-2 could be analogously applied in the instant case as otherwise it would unnecessarily lead to the violation of elementary principles of reasonableness and equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. As mentioned herein above, Para 2 of Ext.P-2 which has been issued on the basis of Ext.P-16 are the norms which are issued in the context of subsequent set of absorption which has benefited many of the juniors of the appellant. Going by Para 2 of Ext.P-2, if a CLR/SLR worker has worked both in the skilled category and unskilled category for the relevant period in question prior to absorption, then he has to be absorbed to the category in which he has worked for the major period in question. In other words, where the CLR worker has worked in unskilled category for majority period out of the total relevant period in question, then he has to be necessarily absorbed into NMR in the said skilled category and not in the unskilled category. Therefore, the situation has to be resolved either by applying the norms at Anx.I which is the norms applicable in the context of the previous absorption or in terms of Para 2 of Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16 which are the norms of subsequent absorption. Therefore, the situation has to be resolved either by applying the norms at Anx.I which is the norms applicable in the context of the previous absorption or in terms of Para 2 of Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16 which are the norms of subsequent absorption. Since, the norms in that regard for absorption covered by Anx.II and Anx.III are absent in this regard, it has to be borne in mind that the respondents are under the admonition and discipline of Articles 14 and 16 mandated in Part III of the Constitution of India as the 1st respondent is none other than the State and the 2nd respondent is an instrumentality of the State. Therefore, if the norms based on Anx.I is applied, it will lead to the situation of regularizing the petitioner only as unskilled category, though at the time of absorption he had already become a skilled category worker, at the CLR level. Whereas, if the norms at Ext.P-2 are applied, then if the CLR worker has worked for the majority period as skilled category, he should be necessarily absorbed as NMR in the skilled category. 14. There are two methods of implementing the norms at Anx.II and Anx.III, one which is unfair and the other is more fair compared to the former, then there can be no two opinions that the State and the instrumentality of the State being bound by the discipline of Part III of the Constitution of India, has to necessarily adopt the more fair and reasonable approach, which in this context would be the one available from Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16. There is yet another way of looking at it. True, that the learned Government Pleader is correct in contending that Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16 are norms issued in the context of subsequent absorption. The heart of the matter is that, the beneficiaries of Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16 are all juniors to the petitioner in the category of CLR and NMR. By implementing the beneficial norms at Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16 in the case of juniors to the petitioner, they are getting benefits which are denied to the petitioner. 15. The heart of the matter is that, the beneficiaries of Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16 are all juniors to the petitioner in the category of CLR and NMR. By implementing the beneficial norms at Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16 in the case of juniors to the petitioner, they are getting benefits which are denied to the petitioner. 15. In that regard, the specific contention of the petitioner as made out in Para 7 on page 7 of the present W.P. (C) [See Page 47 of the paper-book of this Writ Appeal] that on account of the abovesaid stand of the respondents, juniors to the petitioner were absorbed in the NMR skilled category as pump operator as on 16.6.1980 (based on Ext.P-2 read with Ext.P-16), are drawing more financial benefits that the petitioner, for no fault of his. The only fault of the petitioner is that he was a senior who got absorbed on the basis of the then existing norms, whereas the juniors are covered by the more beneficial norms issued at a later point of time. All identical benefits granted in terms of the subsequent norms cannot be necessarily claimed as a matter of right. However, when there are two methods of implementing norms at Anx.II and Anx.III, then there cannot be any two opinion that the more fair and reasonable procedure must be adopted, more particularly as the norms in Anx.II and Anx.III are silent about that. If, the abovesaid interpretation is not accepted, then it would inevitably lead to the situation whereby admitted juniors of the petitioner are drawing more financial benefits than the petitioner. For these reasons, we are of the firm view that the 1st respondent has gone wrong in denying the benefit in question, though the employer, viz. the 2nd respondent has taken the definite stand that necessary benefits should be granted in favour of the petitioner as can be seen from Exts.P-4, P-6 and P-7. With effect from the promulgation of new legislation, the Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government vested in the separately statutorily created entity of the Kerala Water Authority and the 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority, which is now the employer of the petitioner therefrom. With effect from the promulgation of new legislation, the Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government vested in the separately statutorily created entity of the Kerala Water Authority and the 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority, which is now the employer of the petitioner therefrom. It appears that since Anx.II and Anx.III norms were issued at a time when the Department was directly under the Government, the 2nd respondent has thought it fit that sanction or prior approval of the Government may be required. The 2nd respondent who is the employer has even passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner as per the directions of the Government at Ext.P-5 as can be seen from Ext.P-6, and has also undertaken in Exts.P-6 & P-7 that the financial liability in that regard is limited and that they would bear the financial implications of the same. Taking into account all these cumulative factual aspects, there cannot be any two opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge has held that the impugned rejection order is illegal and improper, and has also found that there is strong prima facie force in the contentions of the petitioner. But, after quashing the impugned order at Ext.P-12, remitted the matter to the Government for fresh consideration again. For the abovesaid reasons we are fully in agreement with the learned Single Judge to the extent that majority of the findings in the judgment are in favour of the petitioner. However, taking into account the fact that this is the third round of writ litigative proceedings, and also the crucial fact that the petitioner has already retired from service as early as on 31.8.2009 and now he is an elderly senior citizen pensioner aged more than 66 years of age, we are of the view that after having held that the impugned rejection order is illegal and liable for quashment, the learned Single Judge should have allowed the main plea of the petitioner, in view of the abovesaid aspects. Hence, the impugned orders in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent it was ordered the remit of the matter, cannot be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Hence, the impugned orders in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent it was ordered the remit of the matter, cannot be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Yet another controversy was also noted as to whether the cut off date for implementing Anx.II and Anx.III norms should be 4.8.1997 or 1.4.1979, the learned Single Judge has rightly overruled the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and has held that cut off date should be reckoned to 1.4.1979 for the purpose of considering and granting benefits. We are in full agreement with the said findings and reasoning of the learned Single Judge for arriving at that conclusion. 17. We are fortified in taking the above view, in the light of Ext.P-14 judgment dated 1.8.2012 in W.P. (C) Nos. 12337 and 15491 of 2008 and Ext.P-15 judgment dated 17.10.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 12263 of 2008, wherein in analogous situations in the establishment of the respondent Kerala Water Authority, it has been held that operators are absorbed into NMR category, they are entitled to be absorbed as operators, which is a skilled category, failing which it would amount to demotion. 18. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered on 1.3.2021 in W.P. (C) No. 35379/2018 to the limited extent it has directed to remit the matter to the 1st respondent State Government for fresh consideration will stand set aside. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment regarding the quashment of Ext.P-12 rejection order will stand affirmed. However it is ordered in the interest of justice that the petitioner is entitled to succeed and it is declared that the petitioner is legally entitled to be regularized on the basis of Anx.II and Anx.III norms as NMR pump operator and the requisite monetary benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed to him by the 2nd respondent Kerala Water Authority within 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Correspondingly, the last pay and the pensionary benefits of the petitioner may also be revised by the 2nd respondent and the arrears of revised pensionary benefits should also be disbursed to the petitioner within one month thereafter. 19. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand finally disposed of.