2021 INSC 0660
                                                                  REPORTABLE
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6292 OF 2021   
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 29856/2019)
Valsan P.                    .…Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Kerala and Ors.                     ….  Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. The   appellant   is   before   this   Court   in   this   appeal,
assailing   the   order   dated   21.05.2019   passed   by   the   learned
Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP
(KAT) No.468 of 2017 titled,  The State of Kerala and Others.
Vs. Valsan  P . By the said order the learned Division Bench has
allowed   the   OP   and   set   aside   the   order   dated   14.11.2016
passed   by   the   Kerala   Administrative   Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram   (for   short   ‘KAT’)   in   O.A.   No.975   of   2015.
1

The   KAT   had   through   the   said   order   allowed   the   application
granting   the   benefit   of   pension   by   condoning   the   period   of
break in service, as being permissible in the circumstance.
2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant worked as a
Technician   in   the   Telecom   Department   during   the   period
05.02.1974   to   31.05.1984.   The   appellant   thereafter   joined   as
an Engineer in Steel Industries Limited, Kerala (for short ‘SILK’)
on   04.06.1984.   The   said   SILK   is   a   Public   Sector   Undertaking
(for   short   ‘PSU’)   owned   by   Government   of   Kerala.   He   worked
there   till   31.05.1987.   Subsequent   thereto,   through   the   Public
Service   Commission,   the   appellant   joined   the   Technical
Education   Department   on   31.05.1987.   He   served   for   about   19
years and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from
service on 30.06.2006.
3. The   contested   issue   arose   at   this   point   when   the
appellant made claim for the pensionary benefits by taking into
consideration and reckoning the service of 10 years rendered by
the appellant between 05.02.1974 to 31.05.1984 in the Telecom
Department  which  was  service under  the  Central  Government.
The   Accountant   General,   by   the   communication   dated
2

26.07.2006 however informed that since the break between the
Central  Service   and   State  Service   is   nearly   three   years,   unless
the   same   is   condoned   by   the   State   Government,   the   Central
Service   cannot   be   reckoned   as   qualifying   service   for   pension.
The   appellant   therefore   made   a   representation   dated
23.09.2006   to   the   Government   requesting   to   condone   the   said
break   in   service.   Though   the   said   request   was   rejected   by   the
communication   dated   12.02.2007,   it   was   by   an   unreasoned
order.   On   being   assailed,   the   same   was   set   aside   and   the
matter   was   sent   back   for   reconsideration.   On   such
reconsideration,   the   request   made   by   the   appellant   was
declined stating that there are no rules for condoning the break
in service. It stated that as per rules the break between the two
appointments   shall   not   exceed   the   joining   time   admissible
under service rules. The rule referred to was Rule 29 (b) Part III
of Kerala Service Rules (for short ‘KSR’). 
4. The   appellant   however   filed   a   review   petition   dated
17.09.2014   seeking   the   State   Government   to   review   the
decision   since   ‘SILK’,   to   which   the   appellant   had   joined   in   the
sandwiched   period   was   a   fully   State­owned   PSU.   Hence,   the
appellant requested the exercise of power under Rule 39 of Part
3

II   of  Kerala  State  and  Subordinate  Service  Rules (for  short  ‘KS
& SSR’). The review petition filed by the appellant was rejected
through   the   intimation   dated   21.05.2015   despite   the
Government   order   dated   24.09.2014.   The   appellant   who   was
aggrieved by the rejection of his request approached the KAT in
O.A. No.975 of 2015.
5. The   KAT   on   making   a   detailed   analysis   of   not   just   the
rules   but   also   the   series   of   Government   orders   which   are
relevant,   held   the   appellant   entitled   to   the   benefit   and
accordingly   allowed   the   application.   The   KAT   noted   that   the
requirement   was   that   the   period   of   service   in   ‘SILK’   is   to   be
condoned as a disconnect period to provide continuity of service
in   the   two   employments.   Thus,   giving   the   benefit   of   the
Government order dated 24.09.2014 the entitlement as claimed
was upheld. The High Court on the other hand has declined the
relief by proceeding on the basis as if the appellant was seeking
to   reckon   the   service   rendered   by   him   in   ‘SILK’   also   as
pensionable service. Insofar as service rendered in the Telecom
Department it was held that the appellant should approach the
Central   Government   seeking   to   reckon   the   same.   The   High
Court, therefore without addressing the real issue has set aside
4

the order passed by the KAT. The appellant thus claiming to be
aggrieved has filed this appeal.
6. We   have   heard   Mr.   P.V.   Surendranath,   learned   senior
counsel for the appellant, Mr. C.K. Sasi, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the appeal papers.
7. To put the matter in perspective, it is to be noted at the
outset   that   the   appellant   had   worked   in   the   Telecom
Department   from   05.02.1974   to   31.05.1984   which   is
pensionable   service   in   usual   course   if   the   other   requirements
were   satisfied.   The   appellant   had   thereafter   worked   in   the
Technical   Education   Department   under   the   State   Government
from   31.05.1987,   till   his   retirement   on   attaining   the   age   of
superannuation   on   30.06.2006.   The   said   service   is   also
pensionable   service.   During   the   interregnum,   between
04.06.1984 to 30.05.1987 the appellant worked in ‘SILK’ which
is   a   State   Government   Public   Sector   Undertaking   and   the
service   rendered   therein   is   admittedly   not   pensionable   service.
The   said   period   of   service   therefore   acts   as   a   disconnect
between   the   two   different   pensionable   service   rendered   by   the
5

appellant   and   the   same   needs   to   be   condoned   to   provide   a
single block of pensionable service.
8. In   that   background,   it   is   also   to   be   kept   in   perspective
that   the   case   of   the   appellant   is   not   that   the   non­pensionable
service rendered in ‘SILK’ is also to be reckoned and the entire
service   from   05.02.1974   to   30.06.2006   is   to   be   admitted   for
computing   the   pensionary   benefits   as   assumed   by   the   High
Court.   On   the   other   hand,   what   the   appellant   seeks   is   to
exclude the service rendered in ‘SILK’ and condone that period
between   04.06.1984   to   31.05.1987   from   being   treated   as   a
disjoint or break between the two pensionable services, though,
one  is under  the  Central  Government and  the  other   under   the
State   Government.   The   sum   and   substance   of   the   claim   put
forth   by   the   appellant   is   to   reckon   the   service   between
05.02.1974   to   31.05.1984,   plus,   the   service   between
31.05.1987   to   30.06.2006   as   the   total   number   of   years   as   the
pensionable   service,   clearly   excluding   the   number   of   years
between 04.06.1984 to 30.05.1987.
9. With   reference   to   the   consideration   made   by   the   State
Government in rejecting the claim of the appellant, the learned
6

counsel   for   the   respondents   has   referred   to   Rule   29,   Part   III
KSR   to   contend   that   the   Rule   is   categorical   that   the   benefit   of
past   service   will   stand   forfeited   if   the   break   between   the   two
appointments   exceeds   the   joining   time   admissible   under   the
service Rules. The said Rule reads as hereunder:
  “ Rule 29 Part III KSR
29.   Resignation   and   Dismissal.   ­   (a)
Resignation   of   the   Public   Service   or   dismissal
or   removal   from   it,   entails   forfeiture   of   past
service. 
(b)   Resignation   of   an   appointment   to   take   up
another   appointment   the   service   in   which
counts is not resignation from public service. 
Note:   ­   The   break   between   the   two
appointments   should   not   exceed   the   joining
time   admissible   under   the   service   rules   plus
the public holidays".
10. The   above   noted   Rule   if   taken   into   consideration   as   a
standalone   provision,   it   would   settle   the   issue   against   the
appellant   since   the   break   between   the   two   appointments   is
much   more  than  the  joining   period  and  the   break  itself  is  due
to   non­pensionable   employment.   However,   what   is   required   to
7

be   examined   is   the   availability   of   provision   to   condone   such
break.   The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   therefore
referred to Rule 39 of Part II KS and SSR to indicate the power
available   to   the   State   Government   to   take   just   and   equitable
decisions   relating   to   the   service   of   any   person   and   the   Rule
should   be   dealt   in   the   manner   in   which   it  is   favourable   to   the
person in service. The said Rule reads as hereunder:
“ Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR 
39.   Notwithstanding,   anything   contained   in
these   rules   or   in   the   Special   Rules   or   in   any
other   Rules   or   Government   Orders   the
Government shall  have power  to  deal with the
case of any person or persons serving in a civil
capacity   under   the   Government   of   Kerala   or
any   candidate   for   appointment   to   a   service   in
such   manner   as   may   appear   to   the
Government to be just and equitable: 
Provided that where such rules or orders
are   applicable   to   the   case   of   any   person   or
persons, the case shall not be dealt with in any
manner   less   favourable   to   him   or   them   than
that provided by those rules or orders.
This amendment shall be deemed to have
come into force with effect from 17 th
  December
1958.”
11. In   that   backdrop,   having   noted   that   the   appellant’s   first
spell of pensionable service was under the Central Government
8

and the second spell was under the State Government, it would
be   apposite   to   take   note   of   the   Government   Order   dated
12.11.2002   referred   by   the   learned   counsel   for   appellant.   The
relevant   portion   of   the   Government   Order   dated   12.11.2002
reads as hereunder:
“Government   have   examined   the   matter   in
detail   and   are   pleased   to   order   that   the
employees   of   the   State   Government
Departments   who   left   the   former   service   in
Central   Government/   Central   Public   Sector
Undertakings   on   their   own   volition   for   taking
up   appointment   is   State   government
Departments   will   be   allowed   to   reckon   their
prior   service   for   all   pensionary   benefits   along
with   the   service   in   the   State   Government
Department   if   the   former   employer   remits   the
share   of   proportionate   prorate   pensionary
liability on a service ­ share basis. 
These   Orders   will   take   effect,   including
monetary   effect,   only   from   the   date   of   this
order   and   individual   cases   otherwise   settled
will not be re­opened.”
12. Though   the   benefit   of   reckoning   the   earlier   pensionable
service   between   Central   Government   and   State   Government
was provided, it was subject to remitting the proportionate pro
rata pensionary liability on service share basis between the two
employers. However, by a subsequent Government Order dated
06.12.2003,   which   has   reference   to   the   earlier   Government
9

Order dated 12.11.2002, the State Government has done away
with   the   proportionate   pro   rata   sharing   between   the   two
employers   for   payment   of   pensionary   benefits.   The   State
Government   has   notified   to   bear   the   pensionary   benefits.   The
relevant   portion   of   the   said   Government   Order   dated
06.12.2003 reads as hereunder:
“Government   have   examined   the   matter   in
detail and in modification of the orders issued
in the G.O. 3rd cited are pleased to order that
in the case of prior service rendered by Central
Government   employees   in   State   Government
and   vice   versa,   the   liability   of   Pension
including gratuity, will be become in full by the
central   Government/State   Government   to
which   the   Government   servant   permanently
belongs   at   the   time   of   retirement   and   no
recovery of proportionate pension will be mode
from   Central   Government/State   Government
under whom he had served. But in the case of
employees   who   left   the   former   service   in   the
Central Public Sector  Undertakings the  orders
issued in G.O. dt 12.11.02 will stand.”
13. In   view   of   the   said   position,   the   observation   of   the   High
Court   that   the   appellant   is   free   to   move   the   Central
Government   if   he   has   a   case   that   his   service   in   the   Telecom
Department is liable to be reckoned is not justified. If the break
in   service   is   condoned   as   sought   by   the   appellant,   then   the
entire   relief   would   be   available   at   the   hands   of   the   State
10

Government.   Therefore,   the   solitary   moot   question   for
consideration in the instant case is, as to whether the break in
service   interrupting   the   service   rendered   in   Telecom
Department   and   the   Technical   Education   Department   is
condonable.
14. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellant has
relied on the Government Order dated 24.09.2014 whereunder
the   condonation   of   the   non­qualifying   sandwiched   period   was
provided for, to reckon the qualifying service. The Government
Order was made with reference to Rule 29 (a) Part III KSR. The
Government Order dated 24.09.2014 reads as hereunder:    
“As per Rule 29(a) Part III Kerala Service Rules,
resignation   of   the   Public   Service   or   dismissal
or   removal   from   it,   entails   forfeiture   of   past
service. As per Rule 29(b) of ibid, resignation of
an   appointment   to   take   up   another
appointment the service in which counts is not
resignation   from   public   service   and   the   break
between   two   appointments   should   not   exceed
the   joining   time   admissible   under   the   service
rules plus public holidays. 
2)   Several   requests   have   been   received   in
Government   to   reckon   the   prior   qualifying
service   for   pension   after   condoning   the
11

non­qualifying   sandwiched   service   as
break without forfeiture of past service. 
3)   Government   have   examined   the   matter
in detail and are pleased to order that the
prior   public   service   shall   be   reckoned   as
qualifying   service   for   pension   after
condoning   the   sandwiched   non   qualifying
service as break between the two services.”
 
A   perusal   of   the   Government   Order   noted   above
indicates   that   the   benefit   sought   for   by   the   appellant   is
provided and the sandwiched non qualifying service as break in
the   two   services   is   condonable   and   the   prior   public   service
shall be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. The learned
counsel for the respondents contended that the High Court was
justified   in   holding   that   the   appellant   had   retired   on
30.06.2006,   while   the   Government   Order   is   dated   24.09.2014
and as such cannot be made applicable retrospectively. We are
unable   to   accede   to   such   contention.   In   fact,   the   KAT   had
taken   note   of   the   entire   sequence   and   had   rightly   noted   that
the   issue   had   not   been   settled   and   not   reached   finality   in   the
case of the appellant since his review petition dated 17.09.2014
against the order dated 25.07.2014 was still pending when the
Government   Order   dated   24.09.2014   was   issued.   The   said
12

Government   Order   in   para   2   has   taken   note   of   the   several
requests   received   to   reckon   the   prior   qualifying   service.
Further,   the   main   aspect   of   reckoning   the   service   rendered   in
Central   Government   for   pensionary   benefit   after   joining   State
Government   service   was   given   effect   through   the   Government
Order   dated   12.11.2002   and   06.12.2003   i.e.,   when   the
appellant   was   still   in   State   Government   service   and   had   not
retired.   The   issue   of   condoning   the   break   i.e.,   the   sandwich
period   was   claimed   immediately   on   retirement   and   it   was   still
being   agitated.   The   review   was   rejected   on   21.05.2015   only
after   the   Government   Order   dated   24.09.2014   was   issued
granting the benefit of condoning the break.
15. In   that   view,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the
KAT was justified in its conclusion and High Court has erred in
setting   aside  the  same. The  order  dated  21.05.2019  passed by
the   High   Court   of   Kerala   in   O.P.   (KAT)   No.468   of   2017   is
therefore   set   aside.   The   order   dated   14.11.2016   passed   by   the
KAT in O.A. No. 975 of 2015 is restored for its implementation.
The   time   line   depicted   in   the   said   order   for   implementation
shall apply from this day.
13

16. The   appeal   is   accordingly   allowed   with   no   order   as   to
costs. 
17. The   pending   applications,   if   any,   shall   also   stand
disposed of. 
……………………….J.
(M.R. SHAH)
                                                     ……………………….J.
                                               (A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
October 21, 2021 
14