Judgment : Muralee Krishna, J. This original petition is filed, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , by the State and its officials who are the respondents in O.A.No.163 of 2012 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Trib unal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), challenging Ext.P7 order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. The respondents - applicants filed O.A.No.163 of 2012 before the Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs; “i) To call for records leading to Annexure-A6; ii) Issue an order setting aside Annexure-A6 order and to declare that Annexure-A6 order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law; iii) To declare that the applicants are entitled for protection of pay and for time bound higher grade, increments and all consequential service benefits including pension and DCRG, reckoning their provisional service as well as prior regular service in the Municipal Common Service.” 3. The respondents - applicants were provisionally appointed in the Health Service Department as Junior Health Inspector Grade II and were later appointed in the Municipal Common Service through Public Service Commission (‘PSC’ for short) in the very same post and were again obtained regular appointment in the Health Department on the basis of fresh advice and appointment. The different spells of their service in the Health Service Department and Municipal Common Service are as under: 1st respondent - Provisional Service in Government from 19.10.1986 to 06.11.1992 Municipal Common Service from 07.11.1992 to 18.05.1995 Date of entry in Government service — 19.05.1995 2 nd respondent - Provisional service in Government from 20.10.1986 to 11.12.1991 Municipal Common Service from 12.12.1991 to 13.05.1995 Date of entry in Government service — 14.05.1995 3 rd respondent - Provisional service in Government from 19.10.1986 to 23.04.1991 Municipal Common Service from 24.04.1991 to 19.05.1995 Date of entry in Government service —20.05.1995 4. When the respondents - applicants were joined the Health Service Department on regular appointment, their pay was protected, and they were granted first higher grade on completion of 10 years service by Annexures A1 to A3 orders dated 28.10.1997, 07.02.1998 and 16.02.1998, respectively. When the respondents - applicants were joined the Health Service Department on regular appointment, their pay was protected, and they were granted first higher grade on completion of 10 years service by Annexures A1 to A3 orders dated 28.10.1997, 07.02.1998 and 16.02.1998, respectively. The 1strespondent was promoted as Health Inspector Grade-I on 15.12.2000, the 2ndrespondent was promoted as Junior Health Inspector Grade I on 09.06.1998 and as Health Inspector Grade II on 19.03.2007 and the 3rdrespondent was promoted as Junior Health Inspector Grade I on 14.05.1998 and as Health Inspector Grade II on 12.12.2000. 5. When the respondents submitted applications for 3 rd higher grade before the petitioners through the proper channel on completion of 23 years of service, the 1 st petitioner, by Annexure A6 order dated 08.12.2011, held that the pay protection granted to the respondents is wrong. Accordingly, the 1 st petitioner issued a direction to cancel the pay protection granted to the respondents and to effect consequential revision of pay revision benefits and time-bound higher grade benefits and to recover the excess amounts from the date of commencement of regular appointment in the Health Service Department by the respondents. In Annexure A6 order, the 1 st petitioner stated that there is no provision in the Kerala Service Rules to reckon provisional or regular service under the Government for increment in Municipal Common Service and vice versa. It was under those circumstances that the respondents approached the Tribunal with the original application. 6. On behalf of the 1stpetitioner, a reply statement dated 18.06.2013 was filed before the Tribunal opposing the relief sought for. Similarly, on behalf of the 3rdpetitioner, a reply statement dated 07.08.2013 was filed in the original application, producing therewith Annexure R3(a) document. 7. After considering the rival contentions raised by the parties, the Tribunal, by Ext.P7 order dated 13.03.2018, allowed the original application. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are now before this Court with this original petition. 8. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners have no serious contentions pertaining to the finding of the Tribunal that Annexure R3(a) order dated 12.09.2006, cancelling the Government Order dated 13.07.1987, has no retrospective effect and the consequential finding that the amounts already paid to the respondents cannot be recovered. 9. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners have no serious contentions pertaining to the finding of the Tribunal that Annexure R3(a) order dated 12.09.2006, cancelling the Government Order dated 13.07.1987, has no retrospective effect and the consequential finding that the amounts already paid to the respondents cannot be recovered. At the same time, the Tribunal after having found that by virtue of the conditions provided under paragraphs 15 and 16 of Annexure-3 to the 2006 pay revision order the respondents are entitled for the benefit of 23 years higher grade reckoned only from the date of entry in the Health Service Department on the basis of advice memos issued by the PSC, ought not have directed to reckon the prior service also for the purpose of pension. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents are entitled to pay protection as per Rule 28 of Part 1 KSR and whatever granted to them by the pay protection order was taken away by Annexure A6 Government Order. When the respondents joined Municipal Common Service, their provisional service in the Government prior to that, was considered for the fixation of pay. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there is no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal, and hence no interference is needed on the said order. 11. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. As found by the Tribunal, when respondents entered regular Government service, the Government Order dated 13.07.1987, which permitted the reckoning of prior service of a person who got transferred from government service to Municipal Common Service, was in force. By the Government Order dated 07.06.1989, the Government Order dated 13.07.1987 was granted retrospective effect from 31.03.1984. These Government Orders were cancelled by Annexure R3(a) order dated 12.09.2006. At the time, when the respondents were granted pay protection on their entering into regular service in the Health Service Department in the year 1995, the Government Orders dated 13.07.1987 and 07.06.1989 were in force. Under those circumstances, there is no illegality in the finding of the Tribunal that the benefits already granted to the respondents based on the Government Order that existed at that time cannot be taken away by a subsequent Government Order which will have only prospective operation. Under those circumstances, there is no illegality in the finding of the Tribunal that the benefits already granted to the respondents based on the Government Order that existed at that time cannot be taken away by a subsequent Government Order which will have only prospective operation. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly set aside the portion of Annexure A6 Government Order which directs the revision of the pay of the respondents based on Annexure R3(a) order and to recover the excess pay drawn by them. 12. While coming to the 2 nd part of the findings in the impugned order of the Tribunal, we notice that by relying on paragraphs 15 and 16 of the 2006 pay revision order which came into force from 01.07.2004, the Tribunal found that the respondents will be entitled for benefits of 23 years higher grade reckoned only from the date of entry in Health Service Department based on advice memos issued by the PSC. The Tribunal in the impugned order further found that in the light of the express conditions provided under paragraph 16 of the 2006 pay revision order, including the definition of entry post provided therein, it is not possible to agree with the contention of the respondents that their prior service in the Municipal Common Service also has to be reckoned for calculating 23 years higher grade. After finding that respondents 1 and 3 retired from service before the completion of 23 years reckoned from that date and the 2 nd respondent is entitled to reckon the service from 19.05.1995 for grant of 23 years of higher grade, the date on which he entered service in the Health Service Department, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to grant the benefits to the respondents reckoning their prior service also. This direction in the impugned order is therefore incorrect and hence liable to be interfered with in this original petition. In the result, this original petition is disposed of by interfering with the impugned order of the Tribunal only to the above extent by making it clear that while calculating the 23 years of qualifying service for higher grade to the 2 nd respondent and while calculating the service of respondents 1 and 3 for the purpose of pension which is the date on which they entered regular service in the Health Service Department shall alone be counted.