JUDGMENT : M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1. The Petitioner is a retired employee of the Respondent No.1/Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board who retired from the service on 31.10.2008 while he was working as its Accounts Officer. The Petitioner joined the service of the Respondent No.1 on 13.06.1983. Prior to the joining of service of the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner had been working in the Respondent No.3/ESI Corporation for the period from 13.06.1978 to 10.06.1983. The Representations of the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 to reckon the service of the Petitioner in the Respondent No.3 for fixation of pension and pensionary benefits were rejected by the Secretary of the Respondent No.1 as per Exts.P4 and P5. The Petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P4 and P5 Orders and seeking to declare that the service rendered by the Petitioner in the Respondent No.3 is liable to be reckoned for fixing pensionary benefits and to direct the Respondents to re-fix the same taking into account the said service and to disburse the same. 2. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2009. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition as per judgment dated 31.01.2023, holding that Rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short, ‘KSR’) refers only to the State Government and not the State Autonomous Bodies, and hence the same is not applicable to the Petitioner who had been working with the Respondent No.1. 3. The Petitioner filed W.A. No.1343/2023 before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench disposed of the said Writ Appeal by judgment dated 03.11.2023, setting aside the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge and remanding the Writ Petition for fresh consideration holding that the contentions of the Petitioner that Note 2 under Rule 11 as it stood as on the date of Petitioner's retirement from service permitted the counting of service put in by the employees retiring from the State Government/Central Government or Public Sector Undertakings under such Government to be counted for the purpose of reckoning qualifying service and pensionary benefits and that since Part III of KSR was adopted in toto by the Service Regulations applicable to the Khadi &Village Industries Board, all the amendments would be automatically applicable to the employees governed by the said Regulations as well, were not considered by the learned Single Judge. 4. 4. After the remand, the Petitioner amended the Writ Petition incorporating the challenge against the retrospective amendment of Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR as per Ext.P7 Government Order dated 22.11.2010, omitting the application of the provision to the prior service in Central Public Sector Undertakings, with effect from 12.11.2002. The Petitioner impleaded the Secretary to the Finance Department of the State as additional Respondent No.5. 5. Originally, the Respondent No.1 had filed Statement dated 11.11.2009 producing Exts.R1(a) to R1(f), the Respondent No.2/State of Kerala had filed Counter Affidavit dated 22.06.2010 and the Respondent No.3 had filed Counter Affidavit dated 14.01.2010. After amendment of the Writ Petition, the Respondent No.2 filed Counter Affidavit dated 08.08.2025 and the Additional Respondent No.5 filed Counter Affidavit dated 01.02.2025. 6. I heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Asif Ali M.H., the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Sri. M. Sharafuddeen, and the learned Government Pleader, Sri. Tony Augustin, for the Respondent Nos.2 and 5. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of Regulation No.6 of Ext.P8 Regulations framed by the Respondent No.1 in the exercise of the powers under Section 34 of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board Act , 1957, with the previous sanction of the Government, the pension and gratuity rules including family pension as per the KSR, with modifications and applications issued from time to time by the Government of Kerala shall be applicable in toto to the employees of the Respondent No.1. The learned counsel invited my attention to Exts. P2 and P3 Government Orders that permit reckoning of prior service rendered in the Central Government/ Central Public Sector Undertakings while calculating the pensionary benefits of the State Government employees. The only condition is that the former employer shall remit a share of the proportionate pro rata pensionary liability on a service share basis. The said provision was incorporated by inserting the same in Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR as per the amendment dated 23.01.2006 with effect from 12.11.2002. The service of Central Public Sector Undertakings was excluded as per Ext.P7 Amendment by omitting the symbol and words “/Central Public Sector Undertakings” and the last sentence in Note 2 to Rule 11 with effect from 12.11.2002. The service of Central Public Sector Undertakings was excluded as per Ext.P7 Amendment by omitting the symbol and words “/Central Public Sector Undertakings” and the last sentence in Note 2 to Rule 11 with effect from 12.11.2002. Since the Petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2008, much before the date of Ext.P7 Amendment, the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner were to be calculated in accordance with the provision in Note 2 ignoring Ext.P7 Amendment as the Petitioner was having vested right over the pensionary benefits calculated as per the unamended Note 2, and the same could not be taken away by a subsequent amendment. The learned counsel relied on the Full Bench decisions of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. P. Haridasan and Others, 2015 KHC 159 and Jayakumar S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, 2021 (5) KHC 157 and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sadasivan Nair v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 404 , Chairman, Railway Board and Others v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Others, (1997) 6 SCC 623 and Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. v. The Registrar of Cooperative Society and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 363 in support of his contentions. Learned Counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that the Petitioner is willing to remit the share of proportionate pro rata pensionary liability of his previous employer in order to have a quietus in the matter. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader advanced identical contentions in reply. They contended that the benefit of Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders and Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR, as it stood before Ext.P7 Amendment, is not available to the Petitioner as the Petitioner was not a State Government employee. The benefits available to the State Government employees as per the aforesaid G.Os and Note could not be extended to the employees of the Respondent No.1, which is a Statutory Body created as per the legislation of the State Government. The Respondent No.3 is not a Central Public Sector Undertaking, and hence the prior service of the Petitioner therein could not be counted for his pension. The Respondent No.3 is not a Central Public Sector Undertaking, and hence the prior service of the Petitioner therein could not be counted for his pension. Even assuming that the Respondent No.3 is a Central Public Sector Undertaking, on account of Ext.P7 Amendment omitting ‘Central Public Sector Undertakings’ from Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR with effect from 12.11.2002, the Petitioner who retired on 31.10.2008 could not claim reckoning of his service in Respondent No.3. They also relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jayakumar S. (supra) and also the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Jose Cyriac, 2024 (2) KHC 240 in support of their contentions. 9. I have considered the rival contentions. 10. The Respondent No.2/State of Kerala introduced the provision for counting prior service of the State Government employees in Central Government/Central Public Sector Undertakings and vice versa for their pensionary benefits as per Ext.P2 G.O. dated 12.11.2002. In Ext.P2 G.O., the provision was subject to a condition that the former employer shall remit a share of proportionate pro rata pensionary liability on a service share basis. In Ext.P3 G.O. dated 06.12.2003, Ext.P2 G.O. was modified to the effect that no recovery of proportionate pension will be made from the Central Government/State Government under whom the employee had served for calculating the pensionary benefits. It is made clear that in the case of employees who left former service in the Central Public Sector Undertakings, Ext.P2 G.O. will stand. The benefits under Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders got statutory recognition with effect from 12.11.2002, when the provision covered by the same was incorporated in Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR as per Amendment dated 23.01.2006. 11. In view of the contentions advanced before me, three questions arise for consideration in this case: - Is the Respondent No.3/ESI Corporation a Central Public Sector Undertaking to reckon service rendered therein under Exts.P2 and P3 G.Os and Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR? - Are the employees of the Respondent No.1 retired before the date of Ext.P7 Amendment entitled to the benefits under Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR as it stood before Ext.P7? - Are the employees of the Respondent No.1 retired before the date of Ext.P7 Amendment entitled to the benefits under Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR as it stood before Ext.P7? - Is the petitioner deprived of claiming benefits under Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR that existed on the date of his retirement on account of Ext.P7 Amendment, omitting the application of the provision to the prior service in Central Public Sector Undertakings with retrospective effect from 12.11.2002? QUESTION No.1 12. The claim of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.3 is a Central Public Sector Undertaking. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, as well as the Government Pleader, contended that ESI Corporation could not be treated as a Central Public Sector Undertaking, as the Respondent No.3 Corporation is formed by a statutory enactment by the Central Government. They invited my attention to Ext.R1(b) Government Order dated 02.02.2001, in which the benefits under the said Government Order are made not applicable to appointments to or from the Public Sector Undertakings or similar bodies as they are constituted under the Companies Act or by the separate legislation of the State/Central Governments. The said G.O. was intended to amend Rule 20 of Part III of KSR. Both sides have no case that, in the case of the Petitioner, Rule 20 of Part III of KSR is applicable. Hence, the Ext.R1(b) has no application in the case at hand. The question to be considered is whether the Respondent No.3 ESI Corporation is a Central Public Sector Undertaking or not. 13. The ESI Corporation is an autonomous statutory body created by the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. It functions under the control of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, and is responsible for administering the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. It provides social security services to the employees of various establishments. The term ‘Public Sector Undertaking’ would include all establishments created by the Government, either by statute or otherwise. Since the statutory corporations and companies formed by the Government are under the supervision and control of the Government, those establishments are Public Sector Undertakings. Considering its organisational setup, its public functions and the Government’s control over the same, ESI Corporation is a Public Sector Undertaking. Since the statutory corporations and companies formed by the Government are under the supervision and control of the Government, those establishments are Public Sector Undertakings. Considering its organisational setup, its public functions and the Government’s control over the same, ESI Corporation is a Public Sector Undertaking. Hence, the Respondent No.3/ESI Corporation is a Central Public Sector Undertaking coming within the scope of Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders and the Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR as it stood prior to Ext.P7 Amendment. QUESTION No.2 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader is that the benefit under Exts.P2 and P3 G.Os and the Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR are available only to the employees of the State Government Departments as it is specifically stated therein. In P. Haridasan (supra), the Full Bench of this Court considered whether the prior Central Government service of the aided college teacher is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in view of Note 2 under Rule 11 Part III of KSR. This Court considered Clause 5(1) of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1976, which provides that the teachers who retire at the age of 55 shall be entitled to receive the same pensionary benefits as are allowed to similar categories of teachers in Government College, including family pension and death - cum - retirement gratuity (DCRG) and all conditions for the grant of these benefits applicable to Government Servants as laid down in Part III of KSR (as amended from time to time) shall mutatis apply to such teachers. In view of the said provision, the Full Bench categorically held that the teachers in Private Aided Colleges affiliated to University of Kerala governed by the said Clause 5(1) who left service in Central Government on their own volition for taking up appointment in the Private Aided Colleges affiliated to the University, are entitled to reckon their prior Central Government service for all pensionary benefits, under Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR along with their service in Private Aided Colleges with effect from 12.11.2002 and all conditions for the grant of benefits applicable to the Government Servants as laid down in Part III of the KSR, as amended from time to time, shall mutatis mutandis apply to such teachers. The principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in P. Haridasan (supra) is squarely applicable to the issue involved in this case. In the case on hand, going by Regulation 6 of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board Employees Pension and Statutory Regulations, 1976, framed under Section 34 of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board Act , 1957, the pension and gratuity rules including family pension as per the Kerala Service Rules with modifications and applications issued from time to time by the Government of Kerala shall be applicable in toto to the employees of the Respondent No.1/Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board. When provisions of Part III of KSR are made applicable to the employees of the Khadi & Village Industries Board, in the matter of the employees of the Khadi & Village Industries Board, any reference to the employees of the Government in Part III of KSR has to be understood as the employees of the Khadi & Village Industries Board. It could not be said that even after the extension of the Rules relating to pension and gratuity under the KSR to the employees of the Khadi & Village Industries Board, the reference to the employees of the State Government Department in Part III of the KSR does not include the employees of the Khadi & Village Industries Board. 15. Both sides relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jayakumar S. (supra) . On going through the said decision, I am of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the case at hand. In the said decision, the Full bench was considering whether the service rendered by the State Government employees therein in State Statutory Corporations and Autonomous Bodies prior to the joining of the State Government Service is to be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The Full Bench found that Rules 11 and 20 of Part III of KSR read along with certain Government Orders including Ext.R1(b) Government Order do not provide for reckoning of the past service of State Government employees in State public sector enterprise, state autonomous or similar bodies as qualifying service for the purpose of their pension and DCRG payable as retirement benefits for service rendered in the State Government. The Full Bench was mainly considering Rule 20 of Part III of KSR along with certain Government Orders relating to the said provision. In the present case, both sides do not have any case that Rule 20 of Part III of KSR is applicable to the Petitioner. The Full Bench incidentally considered Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders and held that the said Government Orders would not in any way enure to the benefit of the State Government employees in the said case, since they are persons who had prior service in State Corporations and State Autonomous Bodies. On going through Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders and Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR, it is clear that it would not be applicable to the prior service in State Corporations and State Autonomous Bodies. In the case on hand, the question is whether the service of the Petitioner in Respondent No.3, which is a Central Public Sector Undertaking, is to be counted for pension. The prior service in Central Public Sector Undertakings is clearly covered in Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR prior to the Ext.P7 Amendment. Hence, going by Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR as it stood prior to Ext.P7 Amendment, the Petitioner is entitled to get his service in the Respondent No.3 counted for his pensionary benefits along with his service in Respondent No.1. 16. It is true that in Jayakumar S. (supra), there is a reference to the service rendered by employees in KSRTC and Khadi and Village Industries Board since the same was referred to in one of the Government Orders. The reference was not with respect to the employees in KSRTC and Khadi and Village Industries Board, but it was with respect to the counting of prior service of Government employees in KSRTC and Khadi and Village Industries Board. Even with respect to it, the Full Bench opined that the reference to those services can at best be perceived only as an indication of the casual manner in which the Government Order was drafted and under no such circumstance as a declaration falling under Rule 11(1) of Part III of KSR making the services casually mentioned in the sentence as qualifying service to be counted for the purpose of pension and DCRG. Hence, the above observations in Jayakumar S. (supra) will not in any way improve the case of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ext.R1(b) G.O. is also not relevant to the question, since Ext.R1(b) deals with the amendment to Rule 20 and not to Rule 11 of Part III of KSR. 17. Hence, I am of the considered view that the term the employees of State Government Department referred to in Note 2 to Rule 11 of Part III of KSR is to be understood as the employees of the Respondent No.1/Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, in the matters of their service. QUESTION No.3 18. The next question is whether the reckoning of prior service of the Petitioner in the Respondent No.3 as per Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR could be denied to the Petitioner on account of Ext.P7, a retrospective amendment passed subsequent to the retirement of the Petitioner, by which the prior service in Central Public Sector Undertaking is omitted from the said provision. Ext.P7 Amendment is dated 22.11.2010 with retrospective effect from 12.11.2002. The Petitioner is challenging the retrospective effect of Ext.P7 Amendment on the ground that it would take away the right that was vested with the employee on his retirement prior to the date of Ext.P7 Amendment. 19. In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1971 SC 1409 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the rule applicable in the matter of determination of pension is that which is existing at the time of retirement. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Syed Yousuddin Ahmed, (1997) 7 SCC 24 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the emoluments forming a part of the pension payable to an employee shall be determined on the basis of existing rules as on the date of retirement. In G. Sadasivan Nair (supra), the Supreme Court accepted that it is the settled position of law that the rule applicable in matters of determination of pension is that which exists at the time of retirement. As per the rule existing as on the date of retirement of the Petitioner on 31.10.2008, he is entitled to get his prior service in the Respondent No.3 Corporation reckoned for his pensionary benefits along with his service in Respondent No.1. The said right got vested with the Petitioner on the date of his retirement. As per the rule existing as on the date of retirement of the Petitioner on 31.10.2008, he is entitled to get his prior service in the Respondent No.3 Corporation reckoned for his pensionary benefits along with his service in Respondent No.1. The said right got vested with the Petitioner on the date of his retirement. The question is whether such a vested right of the Petitioner could be taken away by a subsequent amendment with retrospective effect. 20. In Chairman, Railway Board (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision in Deokinandan Prasad (supra) and held that the amendments impugned therein insofar as they have been given retrospective operation are violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that they are unreasonable and arbitrary since the said amendments have the effect of reducing the amount of pension that had become payable to the employees who had already retired from service on the date of issuance of the amendment. The principle of law is that a right which is vested on an employee could not be taken away by a subsequent amendment. In Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision in Chairman, Railway Board (supra) and held that the exposition of the legal principles culled out is that an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it would be held to be violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Division Bench decision of this Court in Jose Cyriac (supra) is clearly distinguishable as the employee therein who had prior service in the Rubber Board retired after the date of Ext.P7 Amendment and hence could not claim for reckoning his prior service in the Central Public Sector Undertaking. 21. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that vested and accrued right of the Petitioner on his retirement could not be divested with retrospective effect by the Rule-Making Authority. I find that the retrospective effect of Ext.P7 Amendment, to cover employees retired prior to the date of Ext.P7 Amendment, is illegal and liable to be set aside. I find that the retrospective effect of Ext.P7 Amendment, to cover employees retired prior to the date of Ext.P7 Amendment, is illegal and liable to be set aside. CONCLUSION 22. In view of the answers to the aforesaid questions, I dispose of this Writ Petition without costs by making the following orders. 1. Issuing a writ of certiorari setting aside the retrospective operation of Ext.P7 Amendment to Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of KSR so far as it relates to the employees retired prior to the date of the said Amendment. 2. Issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 to re-fix all the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner, reckoning the period of service rendered by the Petitioner from 13.06.1978 to 10.06.1983 in the Respondent No.3/Corporation and disbursing the benefits thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. The Respondent No.1 is entitled to deduct the proportionate share of pro rata pensionary liability for the service from 13.06.1978 to 10.06.1983 from the benefits payable to the Petitioner.