JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The prayers in the afore captioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows (see page No.8 of the paper book of this O.P) : “1. To set aside the Exhibit P5 order of the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.1979/2015 2. To dismiss the Exhibit P1 Original Application No.1979/2015 filed by the Respondent before the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal. 3. To declare that Respondent is not eligible for any of the reliefs claimed in the Exhibit P1 Original Application. 4. Any other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala, two department officers concerned & the Accountant General [Audit & Entitlement]) in the O.P/R1 to R4 in the O.A and Sri.C.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A before the Tribunal. 3. The original applicant (R1 herein) had filed Ext.P-1 Original Application, O.A No.1979/2015 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench with the following prayers (see page No.19 of the paper book of this O.P) : “1. To declare that the applicant has 765 casual working days which is to commuted as 4years of service for reckoning pension. 2. To declare that the applicant is entitled for full term pension for 30 years. 3. To declare that the Annexure A-8 is illegal and improper. 4. To declare that his pension and other financial benefits may be fixed for the 30 years of full term pension. 5. Any other order which deems fit and proper to the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has passed the impugned Ext.P-5 final order dated 12.01.2018 in O.A No.1979/2015 and the operative portion of the directions therein is contained in paragraph No.9 thereof, which read as follows (see page No.69 of the paper book) : “9. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to get pension for 30 years of qualifying service. There will be a direction to the respondents to issue revised orders with regard to the pensionary claims of the applicant reckoning 30 years as his qualifying service. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to get pension for 30 years of qualifying service. There will be a direction to the respondents to issue revised orders with regard to the pensionary claims of the applicant reckoning 30 years as his qualifying service. The first respondent shall issue necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.” 5. The State of Kerala and others have filed the instant original petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for seeking interference with the said impugned final order rendered by the Tribunal at Ext.P-5. According to the original applicant, he had joined duty as permanent labour from 07.07.1980 onwards at the Integrated Poultry Development (IPD) Block, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram attached to the Farm under the District office of the Animal Husbandry Department. According to him, prior to his appointment as permanent labourer, he had worked as casual labourer from 1971 to 1980 at IPD Block, Pettah and Broiler Farm, Pettah. It is common ground that the original applicant has served as casual labourer in the Farm concerned under the Animal Husbandry Department on various dates for the periods from 1971 upto 1980. The details of the precise dates on which the applicant has served as casual labourer have been given in a table at page No.2 of the reply statement dated 19.10.2016 filed by the 1st respondent in the O.A (see page No.59 of this paper book). The said table reads as follows : “TABLE Year No. of days worked at IPD Block, Pettah No. of days worked at Broiler Farm, Pettah Total days worked 1971 Nil 2 2 1972 Nil Nil Nil 1973 Nil Nil Nil 1974 Nil 19 19 1975 Nil 43 43 1976 Nil 88 1/2 88 1/2 1977 Nil 90 90 1978 12 112 1/2 124 1/2 1979 4 259 1/2 263 1/2 1980 1 133 1/2 134 1/2 Total 765 days” 6. Hence, it is the admitted case of both sides that the original applicant, has a casual labour service for a total period of 765 days, for the period from 1971 to 1980, the break up figures of which are given above in the said table. It appears that the original applicant was regularized and he was conferred permanent labourer status from 07.07.1980 onwards. It appears that the original applicant was regularized and he was conferred permanent labourer status from 07.07.1980 onwards. Further, it appears that the original applicant has been given four Higher Grades during his service as permanent labourer in the Farm under the Animal Husbandry Department. It is also common ground that the applicant has thereafter retired from service on 31.12.2006. It appears that the applicant has a total period of 26 years 5 months and 24 days of service as permanent labourer. It is the case of the applicant that his casual labour service period was treated as four years, as per the norms for the purpose of conferment of the Higher Grades concerned. The applicant would thus contend that the abovesaid period of casual labour service should be reckoned as four years for the purpose of computing his pension consequent to his retirement as permanent labourer. It is also pointed out by the applicant that a period of 1 year, 3 months and 9 days, has to be treated as non-qualifying service and after excluding the said non-qualifying service and after reckoning the casual labour service as four years and taking into account his admitted permanent labour service period, he would have a total qualifying period of 29 years, 3 months & 15 days, for the purpose of reckoning pension, consequent to his retirement as permanent labourer. Further that, going by the norms in the Rules, the said period has to be rounded off and reckoned as 30 years and that therefore, the applicant is legally entitled for getting pension by reckoning his pensionable service as 30 years. 7. The abovesaid claim of the original applicant was rejected by the State Government in the Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) Department, as per the impugned Annexure-A5 order dated 04.02.2015, which was rendered without hearing him. Being aggrieved by Annexure-A5, the applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal by filing O.A No.415/2015, which has been disposed of by the Tribunal, as per Annexure-A7 final order dated 18.03.2013 by holding that the impugned Annexure-A5 is liable for interdiction, on the sole ground of violation of natural justice and that accordingly, the impugned Annexure-A5 order dated 04.02.2015 was quashed by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted to the competent authority of the State Government to consider the matter afresh and to pass orders afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant. These directions of the Tribunal are contained in Annexure-A7. Consequent thereto, the competent authority of the State Government in the Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) Department, after affording opportunity of being heard to the applicant, has passed Annexure-A8 G.O (Ms.) No.1575/2015/AD dated 17.09.2015, rejecting the claim of the applicant for reckoning the abovesaid casual labour service period as four years and holding that the said period of casual service can be reckoned only as three years for the purpose of reckoning pension consequent to his retirement as permanent labourer. It is this order at Annexure-A8 rendered on 17.09.2015 that is under challenge in the instant original application, which has resulted in the impugned Ext.P5 final order of the Tribunal in favour of the applicant. 8. The Rules governing the matter relating to reckoning of pensionable service of the employees like the applicant are contained in Annexure-A9 G.O (P) No.248/80/AD dated 08.07.1980 (the date of Annexure-A9 G.O (P) No.248/80/AD is shown as 01.06.1980 in the original application and the same would only be a mistake, as can be seen from the recitals and references in Annexure-A8 G.O (Ms.) No.1575/2015/AD dated 17.09.2015, wherein the said Annexure-A9 G.O (P) No.248/80/AD is shown as having the date 08.07.1980 and the same is again reiterated in paragraph No.3 of Annexure-A8 Government Order by the State Government). So it appears that the correct date of Annexure-A9 G.O (P) No.248/80/AD is 08.07.1980 and not 01.06.1980, as stated in the original application. Rule 4(e)(iii) reads as follows (see page No.44 of the paper book) : OTHER LANGUAGE The said Rule 4(e)(iii) of Annexure-A9 Rules cannot be read in isolation and as it has to be understood in the light of the Note appended to Rule 9 relating to the further methodology for computation of qualifying pensionable service. Note appended to Rule 9 reads as follows (see page No.47 of this paper book) : OTHER LANGUAGES 9. Note appended to Rule 9 reads as follows (see page No.47 of this paper book) : OTHER LANGUAGES 9. The contention of the State and the Department officers concerned is that going by the provisions contained in Rule 4(e)(iii) of Annexure-A9 Rules, if the incumbent concerned has at least 200 or above number of days in a given calendar year, then the same has to be treated as one full year and that if the incumbent has casual labour service for any of the other years, which comes below 200 days, then those periods of services, which do not cross 200 or above number of days concerned has to be clubbed together and in the said cumulative figure, every 200 days, which has to be reckoned as calendar year and the balance period if it is below 200 days, then the same will have to be ignored. On this basis, the State authorities would contend that the applicant has total 263 ½ days of casual service for the year 1979 and that in all the other years, his total length of service in the year concerned is well below the minimum time frame of 200 days. Accordingly, the State and the Accountant General would take the stand that the period of 263 ½ days in the year 1979 is to be treated as one calendar year and the said period of 263 ½ days should be deducted from the total casual labour service of 765 days and the balance comes to 501 ½ days. In that regard, it is the case of the State & the Accountant General that the said balance period of 501 ½ days is to be treated as having two years, as it comprises of 200 days + 200 days + 101 ½ days and the 200 days period and the two spell of 200 days period have to be counted as two years and the balance 101 ½ days will have to be ignored. 10. The abovesaid contention has been repelled by the Tribunal on the reasoning that the said interpretation put forward by the respondents before the Tribunal will militate the second limb of clause (iii) of Rule 4(e) of Annexure-A9 Rules. 10. The abovesaid contention has been repelled by the Tribunal on the reasoning that the said interpretation put forward by the respondents before the Tribunal will militate the second limb of clause (iii) of Rule 4(e) of Annexure-A9 Rules. The Tribunal has taken the view that the stand of the respondents in the O.A that the 263 ½ days service for the year 1979 is to be reckoned as one year, as contended by the respondent. But that for the balance 501 ½ days (viz., 765 days – 263 ½ days = 501 ½ days), is to be treated as two spells of 200 days each and the balance 101 ½ days is to be reckoned as one year. The reasoning for the Tribunal to hold that the said balance period of 101 ½ which should be reckoned as one year, is that the second limb of clause (iii) of Rule 4(e) exclusively provides that the balance number of days (after deducting the periods of 200 days and above in any other calendar years), should be reckoned in terms of different spells of 200 days and the balance if any, should be treated as one year, etc. The second limb of clause (iii) of Rule 4(e) provides as follows : OTHER LANGUAGE 11. The departmental authorities concerned and the Accountant General have challenged the said view of the Tribunal by filing the instant petition. After hearing both sides, we are of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, in holding that the abovesaid casual service period of the applicant is to be treated as four years, is fully correct and may not require any interdiction. However, we are of the considered view that the reasonings given by the Tribunal for arriving at the said conclusion may not be fully appropriate and tenable. So also, we feel that the arguments submitted both by the State authorities concerned and the original applicant may not be tenable. This is for the simple reason that the crucial aspects of the matter is borne out from the note appended to Rule 9 of Annexure-A9 Rules. Though the said note is not appended to Rule 9, it is quite pertinent and relevant for the present purpose, for the simple reason that Rule 9 deals with certain other details regarding reckoning of pensionable service. Though the said note is not appended to Rule 9, it is quite pertinent and relevant for the present purpose, for the simple reason that Rule 9 deals with certain other details regarding reckoning of pensionable service. We have already quoted the note appended to Rule 9. The said note appended to Rule 9 would specifically stipulate that a part of an year qualifying the pensionable service should be treated as the next or nearest completed year and in the said period, if it is less than half year, then the same should be ignored. In this context, the said expression 'year' can only be deemed or notional year envisaged in Rule 4(e)(iii), since it is specifically stipulated therein that the minimum benchmark for being treated or reckoned as a calendar year, should be that the casual labourer should have worked at least for about 200 days or above in a calendar year. These provisions in Annexure-A9 Rules have to be read in the context of hard realities of casual labour employment. For example, in the instant case, the original applicant has been in casual service since the early 1970’s and upto the early 1980’s. The actual requirement and demand of casual labourer may not always be regular and it could be irregular and seasonal. It could be more often than not inevitable in nature. Once, a labourer becomes a casual labourer, he may wait for occurrence of such work and he may give up other works and he may be retained in a given area, hoping and expecting that the work will occur in future and that the service as casual labourer will be required in the project or the Farm concerned. Therefore, the employment of a casual labourer like the applicant would be dependent upon the nature of the work and various other fluctuating factors. Therefore, in many a case, though the casual labourer may be working for a decade or more, their actual number of service in a given calendar year, may not be much and that is why the Rule has specifically envisage that at least 200 days of work, will be treated as having worked in a calendar year. Therefore, the provisions contained in Rule 4(e)(iii) and the Note appended to Rule 9 have to be understood in the context of these hard realities. Therefore, the provisions contained in Rule 4(e)(iii) and the Note appended to Rule 9 have to be understood in the context of these hard realities. It is in the light of these aspects, that the competent authority of the State Government in exercise of the Rule making powers has framed Rules in the nature of Annexure-A9, to ensure that the pensionary claims of such casual labourers, who subsequently get regularised as permanent labourer, are duly considered in a fair, just and equitable manner. Taking note of these crucial aspects of the matter, we are of the considered view that the expression ‘year’ occurring in the Note appended to Rule 9, can only mean that the casual labourer should have worked at least for 200 days or above in a given calendar year. Therefore, the expression ‘half the said year’ occurring in the second limb of the Note appended to Rule 9 can only mean that the situation where the casual labourer has worked 100 days, as half a year should mean half of 200 days. Therefore, going by a combined and cumulative and harmonious reading of the provisions contained in Annexure-A9 Rule, more particularly, Rule 4(e)(iii) and the Note appended to Rule 9, it is clear like the day light that if the casual labourer has worked for at least 200 days, that period is to be treated as one year and all the balance periods, should be clubbed together and should be segregated in terms of units of 200 days each and after such segregation, if there is any balance period and in the said balance period, has at least 100 days or more, that is more than a half year, then the said period should be reckoned for the purpose of qualifying pensionable service. If the balance period is below 100 days, then the same has to be ignored. This is the only manner by which Rule 4(e)(iii) can be harmoniously and properly read in the light of the note appended to Rule 9 of Annexure-A9 Rules. Now, coming back to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of both sides that the applicant has worked for 263 ½ days for the year 1979 and the total number of days he has worked for all the years is 765 days. Now, coming back to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of both sides that the applicant has worked for 263 ½ days for the year 1979 and the total number of days he has worked for all the years is 765 days. Therefore, one will have to deduct 200 days from the total working days of 765 days, as the applicant has not worked for 200 days or above in any of the academic years. Going by this approach, the balance period would be 565 days (viz., 765 – 200 = 565). The said 565 days would be sliced as 200 + 200 + 165. The two spell of 200 days each could be treated as two years and the balance 165 days since it exceeds more than 100 days (half year), the same has to be treated as one year, going by the mandate of the note appended to Rule 9. Hence, the total number of years of casual service to be reckoned for the purpose of pension would be one year for the year 1979 and balance three years for the balance period and thus, the total period to be reckoned should be four years. The matter could be seen from another angle also. The simple method would be to take the total number of casual service period of the labourer, which in the instant case is 765 days and segregate that in terms of 200 days each to the extent possible and then take the balance period and so in the instant case, it would be 200 + 200 + 200 + 165 =765 and the three spells of 200 days should be treated as three years and the balance 165 days would be treated as one year for the abovesaid reason, going by the impact of the note appended to Rule 9. 12. Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the stand of the State authorities that the applicant’s work period for the year 1979 consisting of 263 days is to be treated as one full calendar year and that the period for that year in excess of 200 days (263 – 200 = 63), cannot be carried over for the remaining spells of service in the other years concerned, where the applicant has worked for the period below 200 days in each of those years. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that his submission is fully fortified by the provision contained in the first limb of clause (3) of Rule 4(e) of Annexure-A9 Rules. The said contention raised by the Senior Government Pleader is seriously opposed by Sri.C.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein (original applicant). In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, we need not get into that issue, for the simple reason that even if the said plea of the learned Senior Government Pleader is accepted, still the ultimate conclusion will not be different in the facts of this case. This can be seen from the fact that even if, 263 days is reckoned only for the year 1979 and the balance period for the year 1979, which is in excess of 200 (263 – 200 = 63) is not carried over to the other years, even then it can be seen that the balance period would be 765 – 263 ½ = 501 ½. Since the balance period is 501 ½, the same is to be segregated as 200 days + 200 days + 101 ½ days and the two spells of 200 days are to be treated as two years and the balance 101 ½ days is to be treated as one year, for the simple reason that the said period of 101 ½ days exceeds the half year (100 days), going by the mandate contained in the note appended to Rule 9. In other words, even if the plea of the State and the Accountant General is accepted for argument's sake, the total pensionable service of the applicant would be one year from the year 1979 and three years for the balance 501 ½ days, which would thus total to four years. The total permanent labour service when added to the four year casual labour service of the applicant would be 29 years, 3 months and 15 days, which has to be rounded off and reckoned as 30 years qualifying pensionable service as per the norms, as noted in para 6 of this judgment. 13. Hence, we are of the firm view that the applicant is fully entitled to treat his total casual labour service as four years and has already rightly so reckoned by the Governmental authorities while granting higher grades to the applicant. 13. Hence, we are of the firm view that the applicant is fully entitled to treat his total casual labour service as four years and has already rightly so reckoned by the Governmental authorities while granting higher grades to the applicant. So, though we are not in unison with the reasonings given by the Tribunal, we would arrive at the same conclusion and therefore, the directions given by the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal, unreasonable or improper in view of the matter. 14. Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners would submit that the time limit stipulated for the compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, as per Ext.P5 final order dated 12.01.2018 in O.A No.1979/2015 has expired some time ago and that time was taken to file the present original petition and taking into account the pendency of the O.P for the period from 28.05.2019, etc., this Court may appropriately extent the time limit. The said plea for time extension is not opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the original applicant. Hence, we order that the time limit for compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in Ext.P5, will stand extended for a further period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 15. The Secretary to the office of the Advocate General will forward certified copies of this judgment to all the petitioners, for necessary information and immediate compliance. The learned counsel for the applicant will also be at liberty to forward copies of this judgment to the authorities concerned, for necessary action and compliance. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand dismissed.