Maibam B.K. Singh, J.;- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated 2.2.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Bench in WP(C) No. 1096 of 2003. 1.1 In the said writ petition, the present principal respondents are found praying mainly for quashing the portion of the order No.23/3/2000-1 (MSRTC), dated 11.2.2003, which in effect implemented the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 restrictively in respect of the erstwhile Manipur State Transport Employees, who were on deputation to Manipur State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "MSRTC") by providing for grant of the revised pay scale notionally in respect of the said employees w.e.f, 1.1.1996 under the said Revised Pay Rules, 1999 and also for denial of arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 1.1.1996 to the date immediately before the date of their retirement/expiry and restricting the benefits only to pension and retirements benefits. The impugned order dated 11.2.2003 is reproduced below: "GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR OF MANIPUR Imphal, the 11th February, 2003 % No.23/312009-T(MSRTC) : The Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that the erstwhile M.S.T. employees who were on deputation to M.S.R.T.C. shall enjoy the corresponding revised scales nationally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 on the basis of the recommendation Sub-committee of M.S.R.T.C. However, the cash payment shall be made to the employees only in respect of the amount of Pension, Leave Encashment, Gratuity calculated from the date of their retirement/expiry/dismissal/termination on the basis of the revised pay under R.O.P., 1999. No arrear of pay and allowances for the period from 1.1.1996 to the date immediately before the date of their retirement/expiry due to revision of pay shall be allowed to the M.S.T. employees. The revision is made under ROP 1999 for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. This benefit do not include those employees who Eire still in service as on date. This issues with the concurrence to FD(PIC) vide their U.O. No.94/2002-2003/FDCPIC) dated 10.2.2003. The revision is made under ROP 1999 for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. This benefit do not include those employees who Eire still in service as on date. This issues with the concurrence to FD(PIC) vide their U.O. No.94/2002-2003/FDCPIC) dated 10.2.2003. By orders and in the name of the Governor Sd/- 11.02.2003 (T. Thongkhopao) Deputy Secretary (Transport) Government of Manipur." 1.2 The learned Single Judge, purportedly, accepting the submission of the learned counsel of the writ petitioners (the present principal respondents) to the effect that financial crunch could not be the ground for denying the benefit of arrear pay contemplated in the Revision of Pay, 1999 to the employees of the erstwhile Manipur State Transport Department, Government of Manipur, who were on deputation to Manipur State Road Transport Corporation inasmuch as the State Government had already given the benefit of the said Revision of Pay, 1999 to the other employees of the State Government and that the said impugned order dated 11.2.2003 having the effect of denying the said benefit to the said employees of the erstwhile Manipur State Transport Deptt., Government of Manipur would be contrary to the rights of the said employees of the erstwhile Manipur State Transport Deptt, Government of Manipur guaranteed under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and after perusal of the materials before the court including the orders of the State Government dated 8.9.1987 and 24.3.1977 and the Notification dated 11.1.1999 (ROP 1999), quashed the impugned portion of the said order dated 11.2.2003. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 2.2.2006 directed the State respondents to give the arrear pay and allowances to the said employees of the erstwhile Manipur State Transport Department for the period from 1.1.1996 to the date immediately before the date of their retirement/expiry according to ROP 1999, within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of the judgment and order. 2. According to Mr. 2. According to Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the impugned judgment and order dated 2.2.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the following grounds : Firstly, while the members of the writ petitioner No. 1 Union were on deputation, their services were utilized by the Manipur State Transport Corporation, and as such, they should be paid by the corporation and not by the State Government; Secondly, the said ROP1999 was never adopted by the said corporation and this fact was completely ignored by the learned Single Judge at the time of passing the impugned judgment and order; Thirdly, despite the admitted fact of the said Corporation having been liquidated, no clear order deciding the legal permissibility of fixing responsibility and liability in the light of the provisions of F.R. 114 was made in the impugned judgment and order; Fourthly, the writ petitioner claiming the relief for setting aside the impugned portion of the order dated 11.2.2003 was filed after a long delay and lapses. 3. There is no dispute in respect of the following facts : The erstwhile Manipur State Transport Department was looking after the public transportations/public carriers, etc., in the State of Manipur under the Transport Department, Government of Manipur till 27.3.1996 on which the Manipur State Road Transport Corporation was established under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 vide Notification dated 27.3.1996. The members of the writ petitioner union, who were initially appointed as employees of the Manipur State Transport Department, were deputed to the newly established Manipur State Road Transport Corporation without deputation allowances, vide order No.1/46/75-T(A)Pt. dated 24.3.1997 issued by the present appellant No. 1 purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred by section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 after consultation with the corporation under certain terms and conditions protecting their service conditions and benefits. The relevant terms and conditions in respect of the said deputation are found to have been quoted in the impugned judgment and order. The said deputation to the Corporation was in respect of permanent and temporary staff of the Manipur State Transport Deptt. who were serving in the Manipur State Transport Department on or before 26.3.1976 for the period from 27.3.1976 to 31.8.1977. The said deputation to the Corporation was in respect of permanent and temporary staff of the Manipur State Transport Deptt. who were serving in the Manipur State Transport Department on or before 26.3.1976 for the period from 27.3.1976 to 31.8.1977. Some of the relevant terms and conditions are (i) The deputation of the employees to the Corporation shall not amount to Interruption of service and shall not entitle any loss of seniority previously held by such employees, (ii) Benefits regarding leave and other conditions of service including those relating to provident fund, pension, gratuity and other benefits applicable to such employees immediately before the deputation shall not be continued, (iii) During the period of deputation the employees will draw their grade pay with other allowances as admissible under the rules and sanctioned from time-to-time by the Government, (iv) Change in the condition of service of such employees shall not be affected to their disadvantages without the prior approval of the State Government, (v) Outstanding Government dues, if any, will have to be paid by such employees during the period of deputation and the Corporation will take responsibility to credit the amount to the Government Treasury, (vi) All the permanent staff (including lent staff) and all temporary staff to Manipur State Transport Deptt. will be given option during the period of deputation to serve in the Corporation under the given terms and conditions of service, (vii) A Government servants, whose services are lent to the Corporation shall continue to enjoy all the concessions he is eligible for under the State rules on a scale not less favourable than those which he would have enjoyed, had he been continuing in the services of Government. 4. The period of the said deputation was extended from time-to-time. Despite option given to all members of the writ petitioner-union to become employees of the said Corporation, on their failure to exercise the option within the stipulated date, they remained as employees of the State Government. A copy of the relevant order of the State Government is found to have been enclosed as Annexure X/3 to the appeal memo. Despite option given to all members of the writ petitioner-union to become employees of the said Corporation, on their failure to exercise the option within the stipulated date, they remained as employees of the State Government. A copy of the relevant order of the State Government is found to have been enclosed as Annexure X/3 to the appeal memo. In spite of the said deputation of the said members of the writ petitioner-union to the Manipur Road Transport Corporation, relationship of master and servants between the State Government of Manipur and the sold, members of the writ petitioner-union did not stand terminated as they were not absorbed, in the said Corporation. 5. The Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 were framed vide Notification No.1/115/98-PIC dated 11.1.1999 by the Governor of Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India. As per this notification, the said Rules shall be deemed to have come into effect from 1.1.1996 and thereby the pay scale of the Government employees of the State of Manipur were revised with effect from 1.1.1996. 6. The Board of Directors of the said Corporation in its Special Meeting held on 28.10.2002 at 11.00 a.m. in the office chamber of the Chairman of the Corporation, decided that adoption of the Revision of Pay, 1999 in respect of the Manipur State Transport employees would have to be done and that the matter should be referred to the State Government for further necessary action. A latter being No.27/4/99-T(MSRTC), dated 14.11.2002 was written by the Deputy Secretary Transport Deptt. Government of Manipur to the Joint Secretary (PIC), Government of Manipur regarding adoption of Revision of Pay, 1999. In respect of the pensioners of erstwhile Manipur State Transport employees. However, the State Government issued the impugned order dated 11.2.2003 denying the arrear pay and allowances for the period from 1.1.1996 to the date immediately before the date' of their retirement/expiry due to revision of pay and allowing the revision under the ROP 1999 for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits as already noted above. 7. We have ascertained that the members of the writ petitioner union, who were initially appointed as employees of the Manipur State Transport Deptt. 7. We have ascertained that the members of the writ petitioner union, who were initially appointed as employees of the Manipur State Transport Deptt. were deputed to the newly established MSRTC without deputation allowance, vide the order issued by the present appellant No.1 on 24.3.1997 purportedly in exercise of its power under section 34 of the Road Transport Act, 1950 after consultation with the Corporation by way of giving general instructions/directions to be followed by the Corporation relating to, inter alia, recruitment, condition of service of its employees, wages to be paid to the employees, etc. The said members of the writ petitioner-union did not opted to become employees of the said Corporation, and as such, they remained as employees of the State Government. The terms and conditions under which the said members of the petitioner-union were deputed to the then newly established Corporation and incorporated in the direction issued by the State Government under section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 are in the nature of assurances or promises made by the State Government regarding giving of due protection in respect of service conditions of the said members of the writ petitioner union. It is but fair that the State Government should honour the said assurances or promises. In S.PSubey v. M.P., State Road Transport Corporation 1991 Supp (1) SCC 426, the hon'ble Apex Court held to the effect that the State Government assurance incorporated in the direction under section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 would be binding and that the State Government should honour the same. 8. In S.PSubey v. M.P., State Road Transport Corporation 1991 Supp (1) SCC 426, the hon'ble Apex Court held to the effect that the State Government assurance incorporated in the direction under section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 would be binding and that the State Government should honour the same. 8. By assuring or promising to the effect that benefits regarding leave and other conditions of service applicable to the said employees immediately before the deputation should be continued flint during the period of deputation, the employees would draw their grade pay with other allowances as admissible under the rules and sanctioned from time-to time by the State Government that change in the conditions of service of such employees should not be affected to their disadvantages without the prior approval of the State Government and that the Government servants whose services were lent to the Corporation should continue to enjoy all the concessions he was eligible for under the said rules in a scale not less favourable than those which he would have enjoyed, had he been continuing in the service of the Government and by incorporating the said assurances or promises in the said direction issued under section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 the State Government made itself bound in respect of the said assurances or promises. The said members of the writ petitioner-union were having a legitimate expectation that they would be given same benefit of pay revision made by the State Government in respi of its employees. Further considering the fact that the said members of the writ petitioner-union allowed themselves to be deputed to the said Corporation believing or having faith on the said assurances or promises, and as such after the said deputation, started to work for the Corporation, the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel will also be applicable. The State Government is bound by the said promises or assurances. Had not there been the said assurances or promises the members of then petitioner union would not have been entitled to the pay scale and allowances of the State Government employees while they were on deputation to the said Corporation. The State Government is bound by the said promises or assurances. Had not there been the said assurances or promises the members of then petitioner union would not have been entitled to the pay scale and allowances of the State Government employees while they were on deputation to the said Corporation. The effect of the said assurances or promises is that the State Government is bound to give the grade pay with other allowances not less favourable than those which such said members of the petitioner-union would have enjoyed had they been not deputed to the said Corporation. 9. Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants draws our attention to the decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in Officers and Supervisors of I.D.P.L v. Chairman and M.D., I.D.RL and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 490 and submits that the State Government should not be made liable to pay to the members of the writ petitioner-union for the services rendered by them during their deputation period to the said Corporation. We have perused the said judgment. As per opinion of the hon'ble Apex Court in the said case, since the employees of Government companies are not Government servants, they have absolutely no legal rights to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scales should be made by the Government. Further, in the opinion of the hon'ble Apex Court, being employees of the companies, it is the responsibility of the Companies to pay them salary and if the Company is sustaining losses continuously over a period and does not have the financial capacity to revise or enhance the pay scale, and as such, the employees of the Companies cannot claim any legal right to ask for a direction to the Central Government to meet the additional expenditure which may be incurred on account of revision of pay scales. In our considered opinion, the above said decision of the Apex Court will not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our present case, the members of the writ petitioner-union were Government employees at the time of issuing the deputation order and also during the whole period of deputation to the Corporation. In our considered opinion, the above said decision of the Apex Court will not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our present case, the members of the writ petitioner-union were Government employees at the time of issuing the deputation order and also during the whole period of deputation to the Corporation. At the same time, the State Government made assurances or promises at the time of the said deputation of the members of the writ petitioner- union to the effect that all their benefits entitled as Government employees would be protected and given to them. Had the said members of the writ petitioner-union been absorbed in the service of the said Corporation, one might say, they would not be entitled to claim anything from, the State Government inasmuch as the relationship of master and servants in between the State Government and the said members of the writ petitioner-union had been terminated. In our present case, the members of the writ petitioner-union remained as Government employees during the whole period of deputation and the said deputation was also made under the terms and conditions forming in effect the assurances or promises on the part of the State Government. In the facts and circumstances, the State Government, who gave the said assurances or promises, cannot be held as having no responsibility for making payment of the benefit of pay revision in respect of Government employees to the said member of the writ petitioner-union. The said members of the writ petitioner-union cannot be considered as employees of the said Corporation in respect of whom the State Government has no responsibility. The decision of the hon'ble Apex Court made in Officers and Supervisors of I.D.P.L (supra) is of no assistance to the case of the appellants. 10. Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further draws our attention to the decisions of the State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D. U. Karmachari Sanstha, 2009 (5) GLT 14 and submits that the members of the writ petitioner-union will not be entitled to claim salary from the State Government. 10. Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further draws our attention to the decisions of the State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D. U. Karmachari Sanstha, 2009 (5) GLT 14 and submits that the members of the writ petitioner-union will not be entitled to claim salary from the State Government. As per decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in the above said case, employees of corporate bodies and Public Sector undertakings, despite having deep and pervasive control of the State Government over the affairs of the said corporate bodies and Public Sector undertakings, shall not be entitled to claim salary from the State Government. In our present case, the members of the writ petitioner-union were employees of the State Government and they were deputed by the State Government to the Manipur State Road Transport Corporation under the some terms and conditions thereby making assurances and promises to the effect that all their benefits entitled as Government employees would, be protected and given to them. It has already been seen that the said members of the writ petitioner-union never opted to become employees of the said Corporation. In view of the said assurances or promises given by the State Government at the time of their deputation, the said members of the writ petitioner-union are entitled to claim the benefit of pay revision in respect of State Government employees from the State Government. The decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in Barak Upatyaka DU Karmachari Sanstha (supra) will not be applicable in our present case. Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned senior counsel further submits to the effect that due to misdeeds and irregularities committed by the members of the writ petitioner-union, the said Corporation was continuously making losses leading to its liquidation, and a such, there should not be any sympathy in favour of the said members of the writ petitioner-union. We cannot agree with this submission also and the State Corporation cannot be absolved of its legal responsibility in respect of its employees merely on the basis of the said allegation. The State having regard to its right of supervision and deep pervasive control, ought to have taken appropriate steps in order to prevent the alleged misdeeds and irregularities as well as to make the concerned employees accountable in respect of the alleged misdeeds and irregularities. The State having regard to its right of supervision and deep pervasive control, ought to have taken appropriate steps in order to prevent the alleged misdeeds and irregularities as well as to make the concerned employees accountable in respect of the alleged misdeeds and irregularities. The relief sought by the members of the writ petitioner-union is not on the ground of sympathy and it is not also to be given on the said ground. 11. We have also perused the directions of the hon'ble Apex Court in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 207 ; Indian Ex-services League v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 104 ; Action Committee South Eastern Rly. Pensioners v. Union of India, (1991) Supp (2) SCC 544; V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India (1998) 8 SCC 30 ; State ofW.B v. Monotosh Roy (1999) 2 SCC 71 ; T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy (1999) 3 SCC 414 ; State of W.B v. W.B. Government Pensioners Association (2002) 2 SCC 179 ; D. Ramanjini v. State ofA.P. (2002) 5 SCC 533 ; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed (2004) 4 SCC 460 ; M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sang v. M.P. Electricity Board (2004) 9 SCC 755 ; National Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. Haribox Swalram (2004) 9 SCC 786 ; State of Punjab v. AmarNath Goyal (2005) 6 SCC 754 and K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Other. (2006) 6 SCC 395 . None of the said decisions is found applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case before us. 12. Though an employee of a State owned Corporation cannot claim for pay parity as a matter of right with an employee of the State Government the members of the petitioner-union were not employees of the State owned Corporation. While serving as State Government employees they were deputed under some terms and conditions assuring or promising to the effect that all their interests and benefits as Government employees would be protected and they continued to remain as the State Government employees by not exercising the option given to them for becoming employees of the said Corporation. We have no hesitation in holding that on consideration of the said assurances or promises made by the State Government, believing and relying on them, the members of the writ petitioner-union accepted their deputations to the corporation. We have no hesitation in holding that on consideration of the said assurances or promises made by the State Government, believing and relying on them, the members of the writ petitioner-union accepted their deputations to the corporation. In this situation, the State Government is bound by the said promises, and as such, it is under a legal duty to perform the said promises. At the same time, the members of the writ petitioner-union have a legal right to claim for enforcement of the said assurances or promises on which they acted. In our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances, even though services of the members of the writ petitioner-union were utilized by the Manipur State Road Transport Corporation, during the period of deputation and as such, they served the Corporation, since they being the State Government employees having been deputed to the Corporation owned by the State Government assuring or promising to effect that the benefits and interests entitled by them as Government employees would be protected, they have a legal right to claim extension of the benefits of the Manipur Services (Revised pay) Rules, 1999 which has been given to other State Government employees. Annexure D/1 to the additional affidavit filed by the general secretary of the writ petitioner No. 1 also clearly shows that the State Government paid dues salary of some months of its employees on deputation to the said corporation by releasing a sum of Rs. 95,73,201. There is no denial in respect of this fact. Despite sufficient reasonable opportunity given, no explanation can be made by file appellants as to why the said documents should not be taken in support of the writ petitioners' case. The fact whether the said Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 was or was not adopted by the said Corporation is not relevant for the purpose of deciding if the said employees of the State Government, who were serving in the Corporation on deputation under the said terms and conditions, are entitled to the benefits of the said pay revision given to other employees of the State Government. The fact of liquidation of the Corporation will have also no legal/consequence on the right of the said members of the writ petitioner-union to get the benefit of the said pay revision given to other employees of the State Government. The fact of liquidation of the Corporation will have also no legal/consequence on the right of the said members of the writ petitioner-union to get the benefit of the said pay revision given to other employees of the State Government. We also do not find that the said writ petition was filed after undue delay and thereby warranting dismissal of the case. None of the grounds submitted on behalf of the appellant is accepted. 13. In the result, this appeal is found having no merit. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and order dated 2.2.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1096 of 2003. This appeal is not allowed and it is hereby dismissed. The whole exercise for payments of arrear pay and allowances would be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. No order as to costs.