JUDGMENT : P.M. Manoj, J. This Writ Petition is preferred by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by his exclusion from the statutory pension scheme under Part II of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). Despite the petitioner exercising an option that was initially accepted by the Registrar General via Ext.P16, this decision was later revised. 2. Following the issuance of Ext.P8, which clarifies that individuals appointed to supernumerary posts under the compassionate appointment scheme and regularized after 01.04.2013 are governed by the National Pension System (NPS), and Ext.P13, which mandates compulsory enrolment in the NPS, the Registrar General directed the petitioner to join the NPS as per the Office Memorandum dated 13.12.2019. 3. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the option exercised under Ext.P16 remains valid and that he is not subject to the NPS implemented for State Government employees effective from 01.04.2013. Furthermore, the petitioner seeks to declare Ext.P8 as contrary to Ext.P6, characterising it as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India . Ultimately, the petitioner prays for the quashing of Exts.P8, P13, and P18(a). 4. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as an Assistant in the High Court of Kerala effective 14.03.2018. Prior to this appointment, he served as a Lower Division Clerk within the Police Department. His initial entry into service in the Police Department was made under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, effective from 27.12.2012. 5. The petitioner contends that between 2005 and 2011, there was an inordinate delay in appointing eligible candidates under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, as contemplated under GO(P) No. 12/1999/P&ARD dated 24.05.1999. To address this backlog, the Government issued GO(MS) No. 292/2012/Home dated 20.11.2012, according sanction for the appointment of 305 candidates as Lower Division Clerks (LDC). The petitioner was among these appointees, as evidenced by Serial No. 117 in Ext.P1. 6. As the dependent of an employee who died in harness, the petitioner was entitled to an appointment that should have materialised well before 2012; however, despite the availability of vacancies, the process was delayed. In light of these circumstances, the Government issued GO(P) No. 174/2012/GAD dated 06.07.2012, creating 549 supernumerary posts across various departments, with the proviso that these posts would be adjusted against future vacancies. In light of these circumstances, the Government issued GO(P) No. 174/2012/GAD dated 06.07.2012, creating 549 supernumerary posts across various departments, with the proviso that these posts would be adjusted against future vacancies. Pursuant to this order, the General Administration Department (GAD) issued orders on 16.08.2012, allotting the 549 supernumerary posts to various departments, 339 of which were assigned to the Home Department. 7. While the petitioner continued in the aforementioned post, the National Pension System (NPS) was introduced in the State via GO(P) No. 20/2013/Fin. dated 07.01.2013, which amended Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). This amendment stipulated that the KSR Part III Pension Scheme would not apply to employees who joined service on or after 01.04.2013. 8. Subsequently, by GO(P) No. 209/2013 dated 07.05.2013, the Government permitted employees appointed to State Government service prior to 01.04.2013, who later moved to other autonomous institutions, to remain under the KSR Part III scheme by exercising an option. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an option via Ext.P16, which was accepted by the Registrar General. 9. However, via GO(P) No. 84/19/Fin. dated 12.07.2019, the State clarified for the first time that individuals appointed to supernumerary posts under the compassionate employment scheme and regularized after 01.04.2013 would be governed by the NPS. 10. Subsequently, by Ext.P13 [GO(P) No. 132/2019/Fin. dated 30.09.2019], the Government issued further orders mandating the compulsory enrolment of all individuals covered by the said order into the NPS. In light of these developments, the Registrar issued proceedings dated 13.12.2019, which revised the petitioner’s previously accepted option (Ext.P16 dated 13.12.2018). 11. On the grounds that the petitioner’s prior service was regularized only with effect from 13.01.2017, subsequent to 01.04.2013 the cutoff, the petitioner was directed via an Official Memorandum dated 13.12.2019 to submit a completed NPS enrolment application to the G(Accounts) III Section. He was further directed to appear before the District Treasury Officer, Ernakulam, for formal enrolment in the NPS as required by Government directives. It is in these circumstances that this Writ Petition is preferred. 12. In response to the petitioner’s contentions, the State maintains that the petitioner was originally appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme specifically against a supernumerary post. Consequently, the State contends that the petitioner did not hold the status of a regular employee at the time of his initial appointment. 13. 12. In response to the petitioner’s contentions, the State maintains that the petitioner was originally appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme specifically against a supernumerary post. Consequently, the State contends that the petitioner did not hold the status of a regular employee at the time of his initial appointment. 13. Furthermore, since the petitioner’s service was regularised only after 01.04.2013, the State argues that he is ineligible for the benefits provided under GO(P) 279/2014/Fin. dated 14.07.2014 and GO(P) No. 209/2013/Fin. dated 07.05.2013 (produced as Ext.P13 and Ext.R3(b), respectively). 14. In response, the petitioner contends that although the appointment was against a supernumerary post, it was a substantive appointment possessing all the characteristics of a regular appointment. He argues that the appointment under Ext.P1 (dated 20.11.2012) was regular in nature, regardless of its nomenclature as "supernumerary." 15. The petitioner has been a full-time government employee since joining the State service on 27.12.2012. He further asserts that since he was recruited against a regular time scale of an LDC, granted annual increments, and performed duties and responsibilities identical to those of regular staff, his status was that of a regular employee. This is further evidenced by his enrolment in statutory welfare schemes such as the General Provident Fund (GPF), SLI, and Group Insurance. 16. Moreover, as the Conduct Rules applicable to him were the same and no separate service conditions were prescribed in Ext.P1, the petitioner maintains that the distinction subsequently drawn between regular and supernumerary appointments is legally unsustainable. 17. Due to a lack of administrative clarity, a significant backlog of appointments under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme accumulated between 2005 and 2011. To address this, a one-time measure was implemented via Ext.P1 to clear these pending cases without disadvantaging direct recruits from the PSC rank lists. 18. As an interim measure, the Government increased the cadre strength of Lower Division Clerks (LDC) across various departments by creating supernumerary posts. The 2012 order expressly stated that these supernumerary posts would be adjusted or set off against future regular vacancies. Consequently, 339 posts were sanctioned in the Home Department, and the petitioner was enlisted for appointment at Serial No. 117 of Ext.P1. Following the issuance of the consequential appointment order, the petitioner joined the service effective 27.12.2012. 19. The KSR Part III Pension Rules were applicable to all employees appointed up to 31.03.2013. Consequently, 339 posts were sanctioned in the Home Department, and the petitioner was enlisted for appointment at Serial No. 117 of Ext.P1. Following the issuance of the consequential appointment order, the petitioner joined the service effective 27.12.2012. 19. The KSR Part III Pension Rules were applicable to all employees appointed up to 31.03.2013. By way of Ext.P7 (Notification in the Official Gazette as per GO(P) No.136/Fin dated 16.03.2013), a proviso was added to sub-rule (a) of Rule 1 , Part III KSR, stating: “provided that the rules in this Part shall not be applicable to employees appointed on or after the first day of April, 2013.” 20. It is clear from this provision that the petitioner’s appointment must be governed by Part III KSR, as his appointment on 27.12.2012 predates the 01.04.2013 cutoff. The statutory provision does not distinguish between regular posts and supernumerary or temporary posts. Furthermore, the petitioner’s case does not fall under the exclusions listed in Rule 4 of Part III KSR, which identifies specific instances where pension claims are inadmissible, namely: (a) When an employee is appointed for a limited time only or for a specific duty, upon the completion of which he is to be discharged; (b) When a person's whole time is not retained for public purposes, but he is merely paid for work done for the State; (c) When a person is employed temporarily on monthly wages, without a specified limit of time or duty; (d) When an employee holds another pensionable office, earning no pension in respect of an office of the kind mentioned in Clause (b), or in respect of duties paid for by local allowance. 21. Moreover, as a full-time employee, the petitioner falls under the purview of Rule 2 , Part I KSR, which defines the employees to whom the Kerala Service Rules apply. For any such employee appointed prior to 01.04.2013, the KSR Part III pension scheme is applicable. The proviso added to Rule 1 , Part III KSR refers to the employees defined under the rules; it draws no distinction between a full-time employee appointed to a regular post and one appointed to a supernumerary post. 22. For any such employee appointed prior to 01.04.2013, the KSR Part III pension scheme is applicable. The proviso added to Rule 1 , Part III KSR refers to the employees defined under the rules; it draws no distinction between a full-time employee appointed to a regular post and one appointed to a supernumerary post. 22. Similarly, Rule 2 (1) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 defines a person 'appointed to a service' as one who discharges, for the first time, the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the prescribed probation, instruction, or training. Furthermore, Rule 2 (6)(a) defines a person as being 'on duty' when they are performing the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service. Since the petitioner performed the same cadre duties as an LDC, he must be deemed to have been 'on duty' and 'appointed to a service' from his initial date of joining. 23. The concept of a "cadre" in service jurisprudence defines a group of positions requiring similar technical, professional, or administrative skills, often arranged vertically into grades based on levels of responsibility. A cadre encompasses regular, temporary, and supernumerary posts alike. 24. In the present case, the Government decided to create supernumerary posts to be eventually set off against the 5% compassionate appointment quota. During the relevant period, the LDC cadre was inclusive of these sanctioned supernumerary posts; there was no distinct or separate "LDC (Supernumerary)" cadre. Consequently, the petitioner’s appointment must be treated as regular—not for a fixed term—carrying a regular time scale, annual increments, and all other incidental service benefits. 25. It remains the State’s prerogative to create posts within its service. Here, the posts were specifically created to clear the backlog within the 5% quota. Once created and included in the cadre, whether as temporary, work-charged, supernumerary, or shadow posts, they constitute an inseparable part of that cadre for all service purposes. 26. This position is upheld in High Court of Kerala v. Mohandas [ 2017 (3) KLT SN 78 (Case No. 95)] and Baleswar Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (1980) 4 SCC 226 ], which establishes that the posts of LDC sanctioned via Exts.P3 and P4 form part of the cadre from the date of sanction until their eventual abolition. This position is upheld in High Court of Kerala v. Mohandas [ 2017 (3) KLT SN 78 (Case No. 95)] and Baleswar Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (1980) 4 SCC 226 ], which establishes that the posts of LDC sanctioned via Exts.P3 and P4 form part of the cadre from the date of sanction until their eventual abolition. A similar interpretation is found in the Explanation to Rule 69(c) of the Kerala Financial Code . 27. Learned counsel further submits that the Compassionate Appointment Scheme under Ext.P2, pursuant to which the Government issued Ext.P1, contemplates substantive appointments only. Although termed "supernumerary," the nature of such posts has been defined by the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Brijesh Kumar [2024 KHC OnLine 8338] and D.K. Reddy v. Union of India [ (1996) 10 SCC 177 ]. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared in Union of India v. Dr. Akhilesh Chandra Agrawal [ (1998) 4 SCC 107 ] that supernumerary posts are to be treated as regular posts. In the recent decision of Maya P.C. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 14915/2024], the Apex Court set aside a judgment of this Court to hold that appointees recruited against supernumerary posts are entitled to service benefits from their initial date of appointment. That case involved the bulk appointment of 2,677 persons with disabilities against supernumerary posts in 2013, whose interests were later prejudiced by the 2016 guidelines. As the Single Bench's direction to grant benefits from the date of appointment was upheld in principle by the Apex Court, it is contended that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 23.05.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 14915/2024. 28. A supernumerary post is a permanent post. Based on the Government of India's instructions and the definition of permanent posts provided in Fundamental Rule 9(22), the following features emerge: 1. Permanent Nature: It is always a permanent post. 2. Lien Accommodation: It is created to accommodate the lien of an officer who, in the opinion of the competent authority, is entitled to hold a lien against a regular permanent post. 3. Availability and Duration: It is created specifically due to the non-availability of a regular permanent post. Such a post is personal to the officer for whom it is created and stands abolished as soon as that officer vacates it. 4. 3. Availability and Duration: It is created specifically due to the non-availability of a regular permanent post. Such a post is personal to the officer for whom it is created and stands abolished as soon as that officer vacates it. 4. Nature as a Shadow Post: It is considered a "shadow post" in as much as no specific duties are attached to it; the officer concerned performs duties in another vacant, temporary, or permanent post. 29. The definition of a supernumerary post under Rule 69(c) of the Kerala Financial Code , as clarified by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, confirms that such a post is permanent in nature. It is created specifically to accommodate a permanent officer until they are absorbed into a regular permanent vacancy. 30. The fact that employees appointed under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme in the Police Department were mandatorily enrolled in regular schemes such as SLI and GIS gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the petitioner would be treated as a regular employee from the outset. Consequently, the State cannot later contend that the petitioner only becomes entitled to service benefits upon the formal "adjustment" of the supernumerary post. 31. The petitioner's appointment was substantive, regular, and permanent; it was neither contractual nor temporary. Therefore, the subsequent "regularisation order" should be construed merely as an order abolishing the supernumerary post, with the regular status relating to the original date of appointment. 32. Accordingly, Exts.P8 and P13 fail the test of law. The respondents' attempt to enrol the petitioner in the NPS is based on an incorrect premise. The substantive nature of the appointment is established by the following: a) The appointment was made under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. b) The Scheme is expressly intended to provide regular employment. c) To give effect to these regular appointments, the Government created posts via Exts. P3 and P4. d) The "supernumerary" nomenclature is immaterial, as the intent was to provide regular service. Had the Government intended otherwise, it would have resorted to temporary appointments under Rule 9A(1) of the KS & SSR. e) Having created a post to facilitate a regular appointment, the State is estopped from contending that the appointment was not substantive. 33. P3 and P4. d) The "supernumerary" nomenclature is immaterial, as the intent was to provide regular service. Had the Government intended otherwise, it would have resorted to temporary appointments under Rule 9A(1) of the KS & SSR. e) Having created a post to facilitate a regular appointment, the State is estopped from contending that the appointment was not substantive. 33. In the aforementioned circumstances, once the parameters for a substantive appointment are met, the subsequent regularisation guidelines prescribed in Exts.P9 and P10 (issued in 2014 and 2015) can have no application to the petitioner, who was appointed in 2012. The petitioner’s service must be guided by the conditions existing at the time of his appointment; a subsequent executive order cannot be given retrospective effect to his detriment. 34. Furthermore, since Exts.P8 and P9 are contrary to the statutory rules, the regularisation carried out in 2017 (Ext.P12) is of no legal significance regarding his pension eligibility. The petitioner was validly appointed under a specific scheme against a sanctioned, substantive post as a full-time employee. Consequently, he must be treated as a regular appointee from the date of his initial appointment (27.12.2012). As this date is well before the 01.04.2013 cutoff, he is squarely governed by the KSR Part III Pension Scheme. 35. Notably, there was no compulsion to join the NPS between 2012 and 2019. It was only in 2019, based on a flawed interpretation by the Finance Department, that Ext.P8 was issued to exclude supernumerary appointees from the KSR Pension Scheme. After a lapse of six years, the Government is estopped from altering the petitioner's pensionary status. This delay has caused substantial prejudice, forcing an employee to join a market- linked scheme like the NPS after six years, depriving them of the compounded benefits they would have otherwise accrued. Having initially permitted the petitioner to exercise his option—which was accepted and acted upon—the Government cannot now unilaterally invalidate that option (Ext.P16) based on the technicality of a 2017 regularisation date. Therefore, Exts.P18 and P18(a) are legally unsustainable. 36. Opposing these contentions, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the first respondent and relying on the counter-affidavit, contended that although the petitioner was initially appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme prior to the introduction of the NPS, such appointment was against a supernumerary post. Therefore, Exts.P18 and P18(a) are legally unsustainable. 36. Opposing these contentions, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the first respondent and relying on the counter-affidavit, contended that although the petitioner was initially appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme prior to the introduction of the NPS, such appointment was against a supernumerary post. The petitioner was only absorbed into a regular vacancy after the NPS had come into force. 37. Pursuant to GO(P) No. 20/2013/Fin. dated 07.01.2013, the NPS was made mandatory for all appointments effective on or after 01.04.2013, applying to all employees previously governed by Part III KSR. The Government Pleader emphasised that this was a policy decision necessitated by the increasing financial burden of pension payments. Consequently, a strict cut-off date was established. 38. Regarding the mobility of pension benefits, the Government Pleader clarified that while GO(P) No. 209/2013/Fin. dated 07.05.2013 and GO(P) No. 279/2014/Fin. dated 14.07.2014 allowed certain employees to remain under the statutory pension scheme, those orders applied only to individuals who had been appointed against substantive vacancies on a regular basis prior to 31.03.2013 and who already enjoyed Part III KSR benefits in their former service. The State maintains that these benefits do not extend to those regularised from supernumerary posts after the cut-off date. 39. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed against a supernumerary post rather than a regular post. According to Article 32 of the Kerala Financial Code , Vol. I, supernumerary posts are created when a person is appointed substantively to a class or grade within an establishment over and above its sanctioned strength, without an immediate increase in the sanctioned number of posts. 40. An officer so appointed is termed "supernumerary" within that class or grade. Such a post is typically a "shadow post," meaning no specific duties are attached to it until regularisation; it is created solely to accommodate an officer until they can be absorbed into a regular permanent post. The post stands abolished as soon as the individual for whom it was created vacates it— whether due to retirement, confirmation in a regular permanent post, or any other reason. Furthermore, Heads of Departments are required to maintain records of supernumerary posts, including the particulars of the individuals who hold a lien against them and the progressive abolition of such posts, specifically for the purpose of verifying service for pension. 41. Furthermore, Heads of Departments are required to maintain records of supernumerary posts, including the particulars of the individuals who hold a lien against them and the progressive abolition of such posts, specifically for the purpose of verifying service for pension. 41. It is further contended that, pursuant to Rule 4 , Part III KSR (read with Part II), no claim to pension is admissible unless an employee's whole time is retained for public service. Under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme (GO(P) No. 12/99/P&ARD dated 24.05.1999), paragraphs 34 to 36 stipulate that only 5% of vacancies in various posts are set apart for such applicants. 42. While the Government recognised that applicants often faced years of delay, and noting that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the scheme's primary objective is to provide immediate relief to the family of an employee who died in harness. To mitigate these delays, the Government created 549 supernumerary posts via GO(MS) No. 174/2012/GAD dated 06.07.2012 specifically to clear the backlog. It was expressly mandated that these posts would be adjusted against the future regular turn of applicants. 43. The State maintains that these specific supernumerary posts do not fall under the standard purview of supernumerary posts as envisaged in Article 69 of the Kerala Financial Code . Furthermore, GO(MS) No.22/2014/P&ARD dated 21.07.2014 established strict norms and service conditions for these appointees to be followed by all appointing authorities. Crucially, the verification of character and antecedents under Rule 10(b), Part II KS & SSR must be conducted. Only after such verification, formal orders were passed certifying suitability for government service, effective from the date of such certification. This process constitutes a mandatory assessment of suitability by the appointing authority. 44. Regularisation of appointment shall be determined by the date of occurrence of vacancies within the 5% quota earmarked for compassionate appointments. Until such regularisation, appointees shall continue to hold supernumerary posts. The seniority of such persons shall be reckoned only from the effective date of regularisation, i.e., the date a vacancy occurs to which they are entitled under the prescribed percentage. 45. Consequently, the probation of supernumerary appointees commences only from the date of their absorption into regular vacancies. Furthermore, such appointees are ineligible for promotion or ratio-based benefits until their regularisation. Supernumerary posts shall not be factored into the determination of cadre strength for promotion ratios. 45. Consequently, the probation of supernumerary appointees commences only from the date of their absorption into regular vacancies. Furthermore, such appointees are ineligible for promotion or ratio-based benefits until their regularisation. Supernumerary posts shall not be factored into the determination of cadre strength for promotion ratios. Any regularisation in excess of the stipulated percentage shall be cancelled, and the regularisation of the incumbents shall be deferred until their regular turn arises. 46. Pursuant to GO(P) No.70/2019/Fin. dated 20.06.2019, the Government permitted annual increments for supernumerary appointees under specific conditions. However, the order clarifies that such increments do not confer preferential claims for seniority over Kerala Public Service Commission recruits, nor do they entitle the appointee to benefits like Time Bound Higher Grade or promotion. Crucially, supernumerary service is not reckoned for service weightage in pay revisions. 47. The State maintains that an appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme is treated as a regular appointment in a substantive vacancy only upon regularisation. Until such time, the incumbent cannot be treated as a regular government employee. Had the petitioner’s service been regularised prior to 01.04.2013, he would have been eligible for the statutory pension scheme under Part III KSR. Even in cases where regularisation occurred before 2013, the period of service spent in a supernumerary post is not treated as "qualifying service" for pensionary benefits. Thus, pensionary benefits accrue only from the date of regular appointment. Since the petitioner was regularised after 01.04.2013, he falls strictly within the purview of the NPS. 48. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3 rd respondent, it is admitted that the petitioner was appointed to the High Court service on 14.03.2018. It was further admitted that the petitioner had previously served as an LDC in the District Police Office, Kottayam, under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. 49. At the time of joining the High Court, the petitioner appeared to fulfil the conditions of GO(P) No.209/2013/Fin. dated 07.05.2013 and GO(P) No.279/2014/Fin dated 14.07.2014. Consequently, his option was initially accepted via Ext.P16, as the 2013 Government Order allowed mobility for government servants appointed to substantive vacancies on a regular basis on or before 31.03.2013. This provision allowed such employees to remain under the KSR Part III Pension Scheme based on combined service, provided they exercised their option within three months of joining. 50. Consequently, his option was initially accepted via Ext.P16, as the 2013 Government Order allowed mobility for government servants appointed to substantive vacancies on a regular basis on or before 31.03.2013. This provision allowed such employees to remain under the KSR Part III Pension Scheme based on combined service, provided they exercised their option within three months of joining. 50. However, the subsequent issuance of Ext.P8 clarified that those appointed to supernumerary posts prior to 01.04.2013, but regularised after that date, must be included in the Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) from the date of their regularisation. As the petitioner’s prior service was regularised only with effect from 30.01.2017, the 3 rd respondent contends that his previously accepted option was revised. Under these circumstances, the respondent maintains that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits sought in the writ petition. 51. I have heard Sri.Paulson Thomas for the petitioner, Sri.P.K. Babu learned Special Government Pleader (Finance), Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose for the 3 rd respondent. 52. In fact, the question regarding the nature of supernumerary posts is no longer res integra, as the issue has been squarely covered by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.05.2025 in Maya P.C. supra. In that case, the Apex Court set aside the findings of the Division Bench of this Court, which had held that appointees recruited against supernumerary posts were not entitled to benefits from their date of appointment. 53. This ruling affirms that persons employed in supernumerary posts are entitled to all service benefits from the very date of their initial appointment. Furthermore, as held by the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Brijesh Kumar , Union of India v. Dr. Akhilesh Chandra Agrawal , and D.K. Reddy v. Union of India supra, employment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme is permanent in nature and cannot be treated as temporary or contractual. These precedents conclusively establish that supernumerary posts must be treated as regular posts for all service purposes. 54. In such circumstances, the contentions raised by the respondents are legally unsustainable. Specifically, the respondents’ reliance on Rule 4 , Part III KSR and Rule 10(b), Part II KS & SSR is misplaced. Rule 4 is inapplicable here, as the petitioner was engaged in full-time employment and performed regular cadre duties from the date of his joining. 55. 54. In such circumstances, the contentions raised by the respondents are legally unsustainable. Specifically, the respondents’ reliance on Rule 4 , Part III KSR and Rule 10(b), Part II KS & SSR is misplaced. Rule 4 is inapplicable here, as the petitioner was engaged in full-time employment and performed regular cadre duties from the date of his joining. 55. Furthermore, the verification prescribed under Rule 10(b) pertains solely to a person’s suitability for a particular service. Once the Government is satisfied of such suitability upon verification, the regularization must relate back to the original date of appointment. There is no statutory or regulatory stipulation that persons appointed to supernumerary posts must only be regularized upon their accommodation against a regular vacancy. Since the petitioner was appointed to a sanctioned, substantive post in a full-time capacity, his service from the initial date of joining must be reckoned for all pensionary benefits under the statutory scheme. 56. It is a settled position of law, as held by the Apex Court in State of Mysore v. Krishna Murthy [ (1972) 4 SCC 764 ], that service conditions cannot be altered or modified to the prejudice of an employee by subsequent administrative instructions having retrospective effect. In the present case, the respondents are erroneously relying on Exts.P9 and P10, which were issued in 2014 and 2015, despite the petitioner having been appointed on 27.12.2012. Following his appointment to the High Court service, the petitioner exercised his option in 2018 as contemplated under Ext.R3(b) (GO dated 07.05.2013). The 3rd respondent’s subsequent review of this option, based on a GO issued on 12.07.2019, is legally unsustainable in light of the aforementioned precedent. 57. Furthermore, based on the characteristics of supernumerary posts enumerated by the Apex Court in D.K. Reddy v. Union of India [ (1996) 10 SCC 177 ], it is evident that the 549 supernumerary posts were created solely to clear the backlog of compassionate appointments that accrued between 2005 and 2011. This backlog was a direct result of administrative lethargy on the part of the Government in implementing its own 1999 scheme. The Government cannot now seek shelter under the justification that these posts were created to protect direct recruits, nor can its own delay be used to the detriment of the appointees. This backlog was a direct result of administrative lethargy on the part of the Government in implementing its own 1999 scheme. The Government cannot now seek shelter under the justification that these posts were created to protect direct recruits, nor can its own delay be used to the detriment of the appointees. Given that the Apex Court has explicitly established that supernumerary posts are regular in nature, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. 58. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed. The contentions raised by the respondents are hereby discarded, and the impugned orders, Exts. P18 and P18(a), are set aside. It is further held that the Government Orders, Exts.P8 and P13, have no applicability to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as being governed by the KSR Part III Statutory Pension Scheme, with all consequential benefits, effective from his initial date of appointment.