Antony Dominic, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent and allowing his claim that the provisional service rendered by him under the 2nd respondent as Library Assistant Grade II during the period from 18.12.1980 to 11.12.1986 should also be reckoned along with his regular service as Librarian Grade IV under the appellants for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
2. Reading of the judgment shows that the said benefit was ordered to be granted to the 1st respondent extending the benefit of the proviso to Rule 20 of Part III KSR, which was introduced to the Rules with effect from 02.02.2001. The contention raised by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants is that the word 'service' mentioned in the proviso to Rule 20 and relied on by the learned Single Judge refers only to regular service and not provisional service rendered by a pensioner, as in the case of the 1st respondent herein. However, we are unable to accept this contention for the reason that the proviso only refers to the past service and that expression is not qualified by the requirement that such service should be regular service as sought to be made by the learned Government Pleader.
3. Therefore, we are unable to read into the rule any additional requirement which has not been specified by the rule-making authority. Secondly, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider almost an identical situation in its decision in K.K. Marakkar v. Kerala Public Service Commission rendered in 1987 (1) KLT 84, where in the context of the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rule, it has been held that whenever the rule-making authority felt that it is only regular service, that should count and it has chosen to use the expression 'regular' and as such in the absence of such an expression in the Rule, the court will not be justified in reading into the Rule such a requirement.
In such a situation, we cannot find any fault with the judgment of the learned Single Judge extending the benefit of the proviso to Rule 20 of Part III KSR to the 1st respondent. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE.
rv