(1.) These Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents feeling aggrieved about the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, whereby the provisional service rendered by the petitioners in the Writ Petitions were directed to be reckoned for the purpose of increment. Consequential steps were to be taken within a specified time limit. The learned Single Judge in the later cases had followed an earlier decision rendered by him in Sobhana v. State of Kerala, .
(2.) The petitioners had to their credit provisional service, and later on had been selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the self same categories viz., Staff Nurses, Public Health Nurses and Junior Health Inspectors. The common feature is that such provisional service had been rendered by them prior to 1.10.1994, and all of them had joined duty only after 1.10.1994. The above date has significance in that the Government decision under Rule 33 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (for short KSR) stood deleted with effect from the said date. The petitioners were almost sure that their provisional service would be counted for the purpose of increments, a benefit which had been made available to their immediate predecessors. But services so rendered by them were not tagged on for the purpose of increments, in view of the deletion of Decision No. 2 below Rule 33 of Part I of the KSR. The Government on the strength of the above had taken a stand that in respect of personnel, who got regularisation in service with effect from the said date, were not to get the benefit of past services for the purpose of increments. The amendment was one towing in line with the amendment brought to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short KS & SSR) earlier. As a matter of fact, in view of the amendment as above in the KS & SSR, provisional employees recruited through Employment Exchanges from 1986 onwards became disentitled for increments and were entitled to draw only the minimum prescribed basic pay. However, the Government decision, referred to earlier, continued to be in the statute book (KSR) until 30.9.1994. The resultant position was that although working on provisional basis, the employees were not to get increments, in spite of putting in service, if such provisional service was followed by regularisation, subject to certain conditions, which are not relevant here, it would have been possible for such persons to get a higher fixation, since the increments which might have been admissible for such service could have been permissible to be added to their basic pay on regularisation. The petitioners contended that the benefits, which had been in vogue and which were being enjoyed by their counter parts, who were lucky enough to get regularisation before 1.10.1994, could not have been denied to them. The learned Single Judge had accepted the contentions as above, and had granted the reliefs.
(3.) It had been held that a close reading of the Government decision made it clear that what the Government actually intended was to confer the benefit of provisional service rendered prior to 1.10.1994. The regularisation may take years and regular appointment after provisional service may also be delayed. But, the benefit is discontinued only from 1.10.1994, since intention of the Government is to confer the benefit of provisional service prior to 1.10.1994. It was immaterial as to when the regularisation is made or when the regular appointment was actually given. This view had led to a declaration that the benefit of increment was to be given ignoring the fact that the regularisation or regular appointment was only after 1.10.1994. Net result was to be that only provisional service rendered after 1.10.1994 deserved to be ignored.