ORDER : Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, J. (Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.09.2013 passed in W.P.No.14244 of 2013.) 1. A Division Bench of this Court, under its order dated 23.3.2022, observed that the matter may require re-consideration by a Full Bench. The Division Bench recorded the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent therein that the order of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 and others v. R. Kaliyamoorthy, reported in (2019) 6 CTC 705 would require reconsideration on the following grounds : (a) It fails to take into account G.O.Ms.No.6 and thus the Full Bench is possibly per incuriam; and (b) It is contrary to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 . 2. We have heard Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate-General, Mr. S. Vijayakumar, Mr. A.R. Nixon, Mrs. N. Devi, Mr. B. Harikrishnan, Mr. R.S. Anandan, learned counsels for the appellants/writ petitioners in the respective appeals/writ petitions; Mr. R. Singgaravelan, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Rajendran, Mr. M.R. Jothimanian, Mr. S. Prabhakaran, Ms. S. Girija, Mr. R. Prem Narayanan and Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsels appearing for the respondents in the respective appeals/writ petitions. 3. The employees, who are claiming pension, are the ones who had worked in a non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages and/or absorbed into regular service after 1.4.2003. 4. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of R. Kaliyamoorthy, supra, had concluded as under : “45. In the light of the above, we answer the reference as follows: (i) Those who are freshly appointed on or after 01.04.2003 are not entitled to pension in view of proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 inserted by G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 06.08.2003. (ii) Those government servants/employees appointed prior to 01.04.2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10(a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. (ii) Those government servants/employees appointed prior to 01.04.2003 whether on temporary or permanent basis in terms of Rule 10(a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. (iii) In case, a government employee/servant had also rendered service in non provincialised service, or on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage basis and if such services rendered shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary benefits. (iv) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date and later appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules before 01.04.2003 and absorbed into regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension. (v) Those government servants who were appointed in the aforesaid four categories before 01.04.2003 but were absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of their past service for the purpose of determination of qualifying service for pension.” 5. G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 6.1.2020 provides that the employees who had worked in the Nutritious Meals/Integrated Children Development Scheme and were promoted as teachers, supervisors Grade-2 and Multipurpose Health employees, 50% of their service under the Nutritious Meals Scheme and the Integrated Children Development Scheme under the consolidated pay will be taken into consideration for the calculation of pension. The said Government Order, nowhere, clarifies as to whether the same would be applicable to those who have been absorbed in regular service after 1.4.2003. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh, supra, was considering the challenge to Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 [for short, “the Rules of 1961”] and Regulation 370 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations. 7. Rule 3(8) of the Rules of 1961 defines “qualifying service”. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh, supra, was considering the challenge to Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 [for short, “the Rules of 1961”] and Regulation 370 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations. 7. Rule 3(8) of the Rules of 1961 defines “qualifying service”. The said provision reads thus : “(8) “Qualifying service” means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 308 of the Civil Services Regulations: Provided that continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post except- (i) period of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment; (ii) periods of service in a work-charged establishment; and (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies shall also count as qualifying service. Note.- If service rendered in a non-pensionable establishment work-charged establishment or in a post paid from contingencies falls between two periods of temporary service in a pensionable establishment or between a period of temporary service and permanent service in a pensionable establishment, it will not constitute an interruption of service.” 8. Regulation 370 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations reads thus : “370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify, except- (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishment; (ii) periods of service in work-charged establishment; and (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies.” 9. The Apex Court struck down Regulation 370 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations and read down Rule 3(8) of the Rules of 1961. 10. Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 [for brevity, “the Pension Rules, 1978”] deals with “qualifying service”. Sub-rule (4) is added to Rule 11 with effect from the year of 2010 and the same reads thus : “11. Commencement of qualifying service – (1) to (3) ..... 10. Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 [for brevity, “the Pension Rules, 1978”] deals with “qualifying service”. Sub-rule (4) is added to Rule 11 with effect from the year of 2010 and the same reads thus : “11. Commencement of qualifying service – (1) to (3) ..... (4) Half of the service rendered under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January 1961 in respect of Government employees absorbed in regular service before 1st April shall be counted for retirement benefits along with regular service, subject to the following conditions, namely;- (i) Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be in a job involving whole time employment; (ii) Service rendered shall be on consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages paid on monthly basis and subsequently absorbed in regular service under the State Government; (iii) Service rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be followed by absorption in regular service before 1st April 2003 without a break; Provided that this sub-rule is applicable to all employees who rendered service under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January 1961 and absorbed in regular service before 1st April 2003. Provided further that whatever there was break in service before their absorption in regular service before 1st April 2003, the same shall be specially condoned by the orders of the Head of Departments, in which the employees were regularly absorbed and such period of break, shall not count for the purpose of pensionary benefits.” 11. Rule 11(4)(iii) mandates that the services rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis shall be followed by absorption in regular service before 1st April 2003 without a break. The proviso to the said sub-rule further clarifies that “this sub-rule is applicable to all employees who rendered service under the State Government in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis on or after 1st January, 1961 and absorbed in regular service before 1st April, 2003”. 12. In the case of Prem Singh, supra, the provision under challenge was not pari materia to the provision which is the subjectmatter of consideration before us. 12. In the case of Prem Singh, supra, the provision under challenge was not pari materia to the provision which is the subjectmatter of consideration before us. Rule 11(4)(iii) provides for calculating the services rendered in non-provincialised service, consolidated pay, honorarium or daily wages basis only if the said employee is absorbed in regular service before 1.4.2003 without break. The said provision has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court. 13. In the present matter, the vires of Rule 11(4) is not the subject-matter of challenge. The doctrine of reading down a provision would apply only in two situations: (i) To save a statute from being struck down on account of its unconstitutionality; and (ii) Where the provisions of the statute are vague and ambiguous. However, when the provision is cast in a definite and unambiguous languauage and its intention is clear, it is not permissible either to mend or bend it even if such recasting is in accord with good reason and conscience. Reference can be had to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress and others, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600. 14. The amendment to Rule 11(4) was introduced in the year 2010. However, it is given effect to retrospectively. Unless the rule is challenged, the principle of reading down cannot be made applicable. 15. The Government Order referred to in the order under reference does not state anywhere with regard to the grievance of the petitioners/appellants. The judgment of the Apex Court on the basis of which the matter was referred to the Full Bench (Prem Singh) also would not be applicable. Even we cannot apply the principle of reading down in a particular manner, as the constitutionality of the said Rule is not challenged. It is for the appellants/petitioners to take appropriate steps as may be permissible in law. 16. We are of the firm view that in the absence of challenge to the constitutionality of the relevant Rule, the judgment of the Full Bench needs no reconsideration. The reference is answered accordingly. The matters be sent back to the respective Courts for further decision.