JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna S., J. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25564 of 2021 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 07.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. 2. The appellant joined as a Junior Arabic Teacher in Adinadu South Muslim Lower Primary School situated in Karunagappally Educational Sub District, Kollam, on 13.06.1984, in the leave vacancy of one Sri.Abdul Lathif. The said Abdul Lathif availed leave without allowance (LWA) for a period of five years with effect from 13.06.1984. He continued on leave till 03.06.2004 by extending it on every five years, and finally he resigned from the post on 03.06.2004. The appellant continued in the leave vacancy post till 03.06.2004, and finally she was absorbed into the post permanently with effect from 04.06.2004. The appellant superannuated on 30.04.2020. While fixing the terminal benefits, the Accountant General had refused to include the service period from 13.06.1984 to 04.06.2004, during the period of which the appellant worked in the leave vacancy of Abdul Lathif. The appellant then submitted a request dated 15.10.2020 to grant her the terminal benefits, including the period of leave service, as it is a continuous service before the 2 nd respondent. But the Accountant General by Ext.P9 order dated 16.12.2020 rejected the request of the appellant, which was informed to the appellant by Ext.P10 communication dated 10.08.2021 by the Assistant Educational Officer. The appellant then submitted a detailed representation dated 15.10.2020 before the Government, praying for terminal benefits, including her leave period service. She also filed Ext.P13 revision petition before the Government on 09.11.2021. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs; "(i) To issue appropriate writ, order or a direction and to call for records leading to Exhibit P8 and to quash Exhibit P8, Exhibit P9 and Exhibit P10 as illegal and issued in violation of the fact and the Rules. (ii) To declare the following;- (a) That the petitioner is entitled to get terminal benefits counting her service from the date of her joining the service on 13.06.1984 till her superannuation on 30.04.2020. (b) That the service of the petitioner with effect from 13.06.1984 till 03.06.2004 under leave vacancy is continuous and entitled to count for all purposes including terminal benefits. (b) That the service of the petitioner with effect from 13.06.1984 till 03.06.2004 under leave vacancy is continuous and entitled to count for all purposes including terminal benefits. (c) That Exhibit P11 Government order is not applicable to the petitioner. (iii) To issue following directions to the respondents:- (a) To recalculate and authorize the Pension, Death cum Retirement Gratuity and Communication of pension to the petitioner taking in to her service from 13.06.1984 till 30.04.2020. (b) To release the consequential arrears without further delay. (c) To grant penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the delayed payment." 3. In the writ petition, the 1 st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 03.10.2023 opposing the reliefs sought therein. In the counter affidavit, it is inter alia contended that the Rule applicable to the person with respect to the grant of pensionary benefits is the one existing at the time of retirement. Rule 14E of Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’ in short) Part III was amended with effect from 10.08.2018, specifying that provisional service cannot be reckoned for pensionary benefits. As per Ext.P11 G.O.(P)No.401/2019/Fin dated 28.10.2019, the broken spells of provisional service/leave vacancy service rendered by regular aided school staff/Government employees, in aided schools prior to their entry in regular service, shall not be reckoned as qualifying service with effect from 10.08.2018. Since the service period of the appellant from 13.06.1984 to 03.06.2004 was in the leave vacancy, on the basis of the rules applicable at the time of her retirement on 30.04.2020, she is not entitled to reckon the aforesaid period for granting the service benefits. 4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 07.06.2024. Paragraphs 5 to 7 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus; "5. Chapter XXVII.B Rule 3 provides that, the provisions of Part III KSR, as amended from time to time, shall mutatis mutandis apply in matters of retirement benefits including family pension and death-cum-retirement benefits. The provision reads thus :- “3. Paragraphs 5 to 7 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus; "5. Chapter XXVII.B Rule 3 provides that, the provisions of Part III KSR, as amended from time to time, shall mutatis mutandis apply in matters of retirement benefits including family pension and death-cum-retirement benefits. The provision reads thus :- “3. The rules on retirement benefits including family pension and death cum-retirement benefits and all the conditions for the grant of these benefits applicable to Government Servants as laid down in Part III, Kerala Service Rules as amended from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teachers governed by the rules in this Chapter.” In the light thereof, with regard to pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner, the provisions of Part III KSR are applicable. The decision of the Division Bench relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealt with an issue of seniority in service. It was not a matter of pensionary benefits falling within Rule 3 of Chapter XXVII.B and Part III KSR. 6. Rule 14E of Part III KSR provides for reckoning of only the period of “regular full time service” for fixing pensionary benefits. The Rule 14E, was substituted with effect from 13.08.2018. The earlier provision did not provide for “regular full time” service. Referring to the earlier provision this Court had in Sabu Mathew and Others v. State of Kerala and Others 2017 (5) KHC 120 held that, irrespective of the nature of appointment and the services rendered, the prior service of teachers in aided schools are liable to be reckoned. At paragraph 29 of the judgment it was held that matters regarding pension and pensionary benefits would be governed by the rules/orders in force at the time of retirement of the teacher. The said judgment was upheld by a Division Bench. It is thereafter that the Rule was substituted with effect from 10.08.2018, specifying that, only “regular full time service” shall be reckoned for pension. 7. As was noticed, the petitioner retired on 30.04.2020 when the substituted Rule 14E of Part III KSR was in force. In the light of Rule 14E of Part III KSR, the prior service of the petitioner in the leave vacancy is not liable to be reckoned for the purpose of pension. Ext.P11 Government Order can only be understood to be in conformity with Rule 14E KSR as it stands. In the light of Rule 14E of Part III KSR, the prior service of the petitioner in the leave vacancy is not liable to be reckoned for the purpose of pension. Ext.P11 Government Order can only be understood to be in conformity with Rule 14E KSR as it stands. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Raveendran Pillai S. [ 2023 (1) KHC 235 ]. In the light of the above, the claim of the petitioner for reckoning his prior services in the leave vacancy, for the purpose of pension, is bound to fail. Writ petition fails and is dismissed." 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. The appellant was admittedly working in the leave vacancy of Mr.Abdul Lathif from 13.06.1984 to 03.06.2004. She was permanently absorbed into the post with effect from 04.06.2004 and was superannuated on 30.04.2020. As per Rule 3 of Chapter XXVII B of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (‘KER’ in short), the rules on retirement benefits including Family Pension and Death cum Retirement Benefits and all the conditions for the grant of these benefits applicable to Government Servants as laid down in Part III KSR as amended from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teachers governed by the rules in the said chapter. As discussed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in the light of Rule 3 of Chapter XXVII B of KER, the provisions of Part III KSR are applicable for calculating the pensionary benefits of a retired teacher. Rule 14E of Part III KSR provides for reckoning only the period of regular full-time service for fixing pensionary benefits. Sub Rule (a) of Rule 14E of Part III KSR reads thus; "(a) Aided school service put in by Government employees prior to entry in Government service qualifies, subject to the following conditions, namely: (i) Only regular full time aided school service rendered after the introduction of Direct Payment System in aided school shall be reckoned for pension; (ii) In cases of resignation of the appointment in aided school for the purpose of taking up appointment in Government, break, if any, between the aided school service and Government service shall not exceed the joining time admissible under the service rules, plus public holidays. Service prior to resignation for other purposes shall not be counted." 7. This sub rule was substituted with effect from 13.08.2018. It was relying on the amended sub rule (a) of Rule 14E of Part III KSR, the Government issued Ext.P11 order dated 28.10.2019 making it clear that the broken spells of provisional service/leave vacancy service rendered by regular aided school staff/Government employees, in aided schools prior to their entry in regular service shall not be reckoned as qualifying service with effect from 10.08.2018. The appellant herein was not a regular employee till she was absorbed into regular vacancy, after the resignation of Abdul Lathif on 03.06.2004. She can be treated as a regular employee as stipulated in sub rule (a) of Rule 14E of Part III KSR only with effect from 04.06.2004. 8. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Raveendran Pillai S. and Another [ 2023 (1) KLJ 295 ] , wherein a Division Bench of this Court held thus; "10. Ruling to Rule 11 of Part I KSR as applicable to the petitioner provides that an officer's claim to pension is regulated by the rules in force at the time when the officer is discharged from the service of the a State. Rule 3 of Chapter XXVII B of the Kerala Education Rules provides that the rules on retirement benefits and all the conditions for grant of the same as applicable to Government servants, laid down in Part III KSR as amended from time to time, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teachers of aided schools as well. Rule 4 of Part III KSR provides that no claim to pension is admitted when an employee is appointed for a limited time only, on the completion of which he is to be discharged. The relevant portion of the said Rule reads thus: "4. Rule 4 of Part III KSR provides that no claim to pension is admitted when an employee is appointed for a limited time only, on the completion of which he is to be discharged. The relevant portion of the said Rule reads thus: "4. In the following cases, no claim to pension is admitted:- (a) When an employee is appointed for limited time only, or for specific duty, on the completion of which he is to be discharged (b) xxxxxx Rule 14E(a) of Part III KSR, as it stood at the time of retirement of the petitioner, reads thus: "14E(a) Aided school service put in by Government employees prior to entry in Government service qualifies, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) Only regular full time aided school service rendered after the introduction of Direct Payment System in aided school shall be reckoned for pension: (ii) In cases of resignation of the appointment in aided school for the purpose of taking up appointment in Government, break, if any, between the aided school service and Government service shall not exceed the joining time admissible under the service rules, plus public holidays. Service prior to resignation for other purposes shall not be counted." A combined reading of Rule 4 and Rule 14E(a) would indicate beyond doubt that no claim to pension is admissible when an employee is appointed for a limited period and that the period of regular full time service of a pensioner in an aided school alone shall qualify for pension. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he was liable to be discharged and he was in fact discharged after completion of service in the leave vacancies. The appointments of the petitioner in the leave vacancies can be regarded only as appointments for a limited time and in light of Rule 4 of Part III KSR, no claim to pension is admissible for the services rendered by the petitioner in the said vacancies, especially in light of the clarification made in Rule 14E(a) that only regular full time aided school a service shall be reckoned for pension. This aspect has, in fact, been clarified by the Government in Ext.P10 order. In the light of Rule 11 of Part III KSR, the power of the Government to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P10 cannot be questioned. This aspect has, in fact, been clarified by the Government in Ext.P10 order. In the light of Rule 11 of Part III KSR, the power of the Government to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P10 cannot be questioned. If that be so, the same binds the petitioner, unless he is able to succeed in a challenge against the same Ext.P10 order was not under challenge in the writ petition. Needless to say, the petitioner is not entitled to reckon the services rendered by him in leave vacancies as qualifying service for pension 12. Now let us come back to the impugned judgment and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to support the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the services rendered by the petitioner in leave vacancies are liable to be reckoned as qualifying service since the same were rendered after his initial regular appointment is unsustainable in law as it does not have the backing of any statutory provision. Similarly, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the petitioner has been granted increments and time bound higher grades reckoning the services rendered by him in leave vacancies, he is entitled to reckon the same as qualifying service for pension, is also not of any substance. Increments and placements in higher grades are governed by different set of rules, and merely for the reason that the service rendered in leave vacancies are reckoned for the purpose of grant of increments or for placements in higher grades, it cannot be said that the same shall be reckoned for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits as well. A similar argument advanced in the context of the service rendered in leave vacancies in aided colleges was repelled by the Division Bench of this Court in Shameer Ali (supra). There is also no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on Ext.P6 statement. Ext.P6 is only a statement forwarded from the School in terms of the provisions contained in Part III KSR so as to enable the petitioner to claim pension. True, the leave services of the petitioner are shown therein as qualifying service. Merely for the reason that a statement contrary to Rule has been made in such a statement, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same." 9. True, the leave services of the petitioner are shown therein as qualifying service. Merely for the reason that a statement contrary to Rule has been made in such a statement, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same." 9. When analysing the facts of this case in the light of the provisions governing the field and the judgment referred to supra, it is only to be held that the learned Single Judge has correctly analysed the materials on record and arrived at a right finding that the appellant is not entitled to reckon her service rendered during leave vacancy for pensionary benefits. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.