Per Massodi, J.;— 1. Letters Patent Appeal on hand is directed against the writ court judgment dated 17.12.2011 in SWP No. 1413/2009 titled Jammu & Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation Pensioners Welfare Association v. State of J&K and others whereby the writ court has quashed communication addressed by Dy. Accountant General to the Commissioner Secretary to Government Finance Department, to the extent it made payment of Cost Of Living Allowance to the petitioners subject to the availability of resources with the J&K State Road Transport Corporation. 2. The admitted facts may be noticed, in the first place. 3. Members of the writ petitioner/Respondent No. 1 Association, are erstwhile employees of J&K Government Transport Undertaking. The State Government in the year 1976 converted the Transport undertaking into J&K State Road Transport Corporation. The State Government vide Government order No.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.3.1979 directed that the employees of the Transport Undertaking would be treated as on deputation to the State Road Transport Corporation. The employees of the Transport Undertaking who were holding permanent status or quasi permanent status for five years on the date the Transport Undertaking was converted into State Road Transport Corporation, were in terms of the aforestated Government order given option to either retain pensioner benefits available to them under Government Rules or opt for such rules of the newly formed State Road Transport Corporation. 4. The members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association admittedly did not opt for the rules governing the employees of the State Road Transport Corporation and took a decision to be governed by the Government Rules. In the meantime, the State Government vide order No.1 19/G A dated 26.4.1980 fixed scale of Dearness Allowance and Cost of Living Allowance for the employees of Public Sector Enterprises at different levels including the State Road Transport Corporation. The members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association continued to receive such benefits till January 1999. However, the appellants -respondents 2 and 3 are reluctant to pay the arrears on account of Dearness Allowances and Cost Of Living Allowance to the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association and also to add 50% of Cost of Living Allowance to their Basic Pay for computation of their pensionary benefits. However, the appellants -respondents 2 and 3 are reluctant to pay the arrears on account of Dearness Allowances and Cost Of Living Allowance to the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association and also to add 50% of Cost of Living Allowance to their Basic Pay for computation of their pensionary benefits. The stand taken by the State Government is that it is the State Roac transport Corporation that has to pay the arrears on account of Dearness Allowances and Cost of Living Allowances from its own resources and that the State Government is not under any obligation to make such payment. 5. The State Road Transport Corporation on the other hand insists that the State Government is under an obligation to pay whatever is due to the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association on account of arrears of Dearness Allowance and Cost of Living Allowance. The members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association thus caught in rival stands taken by the State Government and State Road Transport Corporation are not in a position to collect their arrears and the retirement benefits. 6. It is pertinent to point out that the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association have since retired on superannuation without getting whatever was due to them on account of the slabs of Cost Of Living Allowance released/sanctioned by the State Road Transport Corporation Board. The members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association to reinforce their claim, rely upon the communication dated 28.6.2006 addressed by Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation Srinagar-respondent No.4 in the writ petition and respondent No.2 in the Appeal, to the Director (Codes) Finance Department- as also die communication dated 13.4.2007, making it clear that almost half of the Cost of Living Allowance slabs stand already released in favour of the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association and that in terms of Government order No.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.3.1979, the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association were entitled to get arrears and other benefits paid by the State Government. 7. 7. The writ court taking note of the stand taken by the Managing Director State Road Transport Corporation-respondent No.2 herein and relying on Article 185-D (iv) of Civil Service Regulations held the State Government to be duty bound to release arrears on account of Cost of Living Allowance, Leave Salary in favour of the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association as in case of the employees of the State Government and the pensioner benefits, accordingly due to them. The writ court also quashed the communication addressed by the Dy. Accountant General vide No. PNRJ-III/SRTC/2007-08/703 dated 29.1.2008 to the extent it made merger of 50% of Cost of Living Allowance with the basic pay for the purpose of pensionary benefits subject to the availability of own resources of State Road Transport Corporation. 8. The writ court judgment is questioned in the present appeal on the grounds that as in terms of Government order No.25-TR of 1979 dated 27.3.1979, the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association are to be governed by the rules of State Road Transport Corporation except the pensionary benefits, the Cost of Living Allowance sanctioned by the State Road Transport Corporation Board from time to time is to be paid by the Corporation from its own resources and the State Government is under no obligation to pay such allowance to the members of State Road Transport Corporation and other employees of the Corporation. It is urged that employees of all other Public Sector Corporations are paid Cost of Living Allowance by their own Corporations without burdening the State Government with such obligation. It is next pleaded that as Cost of Living Allowance notified vide Finance Department OM No. A/44(85)-III/99 dated 16.11.2007 has not been paid by the State Road Transport Corporation, the question of adding 50% of the Cost of Living Allowance to the basic pay of members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association to work out pensionary benefits, does not arise. It is further urged that in terms of aforestated Finance Department OM No. A/44(85)-III/99 dated 16.11.2007, the payment of Cost of Living Allowance granted w.e.f 1.1.2004 and 1.1.2005 is expressly made subject to availability of resources of the concerned Corporation. The appellants on the strength of grounds urged in the appeal insist that the impugned judgment is based on erroneous assumptions and liable to be set aside. 9. The appellants on the strength of grounds urged in the appeal insist that the impugned judgment is based on erroneous assumptions and liable to be set aside. 9. We have gone through the memoranda of appeal as also the writ court judgment. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length. 10. The stand set out in the memorandum of appeal, is taken oblivious to the status of the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association. It is very important for the appellants and for that matter this court to appreciate that the members of the'writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association were employees of erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking and entitled to all the benefits as were available to the Government employees. The members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association did not join the State Road Transport Corporation after it cameinto existence in the year 1976 but were in terms of the aforestated Government order to be treated as on deputation to the State Road Transport Corporation. They were given an option to retain previous status or get absorbed in the State Road Transport Corporation. However, they decided against their absorption in the State Road Transport Corporation and decided to retain their status they enjoyed before the Government Undertaking was converted into State Road Transport Corporation. Resultantly, the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association in terms of Government order No. 25/TR of 1979 dated 27.3.1979 were extended an assurance that they would be governed by the rules applying to the Government employees in the matter of pensionary benefits. 11. The members of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 Association, therefore cannot be treated at par with the employees of the State Road Transport Corporation who joined the Corporation after it came into being in the year 1976 and consented to be governed by the rules of the Corporation. The appellants surprisingly project their case to question the writ court judgment as if the members of the writ petitioner/respondent Corporation had joined the Corporation after it was constituted. Having said so, let us proceed to examine the rule position relevant to the present controversy. 12. Article 185 to 185-E Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations 1956 deal with the cases where services of an officer are lent temporarily or otherwise, to a local body. Having said so, let us proceed to examine the rule position relevant to the present controversy. 12. Article 185 to 185-E Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations 1956 deal with the cases where services of an officer are lent temporarily or otherwise, to a local body. Public Sector Undertaking, Government Corporation, Quasi Government Corporation, Central Government Autonomous Bodies etc. Article 185-D(IV) is relevant in the present case and needs to be noticed. "185-D(IV) Notwithstanding anything contained in Art 185-D (I) to 185-D-(III) the pensionary benefits in respect of Government Servants who are transferred to an Autonomous Body/Public Sector Undertaking on the conversion of a Government Department/Office into an autonomous body or public undertaking shall be governed by the following conditions: (a). The permanent Government Servant shall have an option to retain the pensionary benefits available to him under the Government rules or be governed by the rules of the Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body. The option shall also be available to quasi permanent and temporary employees after they have been confirmed in the Autonomous Body/Public Sector Undertaking. (b) The Government servants who opt to be governed by the pensionary benefits available under the Government shall at the time of their retirement be entitled to pension etc in accordance with the State Government Rules in force at that time. (c) The Government servants who opt to be governed by the rules of Autonomous Body or Public Undertaking shall become liable to the rules of the Autonomous Body/Undertaking from the date of their transfer. For the service under the Government they will receive the following retirement benefits: (i) Permanent Government Servants who have completed 10 years or more service will receive pro-rata retirement benefits. (ii) Permanent Government Servants with less than 10 years service, quasi permanent and temporary/employees shall be entitled to provident fund contribution for the period of their service under the Government with simple interest @ 6% per annum as opening balance in the C.P. Fund Account with the Undertaking. (d) The retirement benefits would become payable either from the earliest date from which Government servant could have retired voluntarily under the rules applicable to him (except under the scheme of voluntarily retirement on completion of 20 years of qualifying service) or from the date of transfer to the Undertaking/Corporation whichever is later. (d) The retirement benefits would become payable either from the earliest date from which Government servant could have retired voluntarily under the rules applicable to him (except under the scheme of voluntarily retirement on completion of 20 years of qualifying service) or from the date of transfer to the Undertaking/Corporation whichever is later. (e) If on conversion, an autonomous body adopts pension scheme as applicable to Government Servant the service under the Government will qualify towards pension under the autonomous body instead of the benefits mentioned above." 13. Section III of Civil Service Regulations Article 240-A to 240-CCC, deal with superannuation, Retiring, Compensation, invalid pension, invalid gratuity and other allied matters. Article 240-BB and in particular proviso to note -7 of the Article added by notification - SRO No. 319 of 2007 dated 6.9.2007 is relevant in the present context and may be extracted hereunder:- "I. In proviso to note 7 of Art. 240-BB the following para shall be added The benefit shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of employees of J&K State Road Transport Corporation Erstwhile employees of Government Transport Undertaking) governed by the State pension Rules in so far as the Cost of living Allowances (COLA) released in their favour. A part of the COLA equivalent of 50% of their basic pay would be treated as basic pay for purpose of computation of death cum retirement gratuity. II. In proviso to Art. 242-BB the following para shall be added: The benefit shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of permanent pensionable employees of J&K State Road Transport Corporation (Erstwhile employees of Government Transport Undertaking) governed by the State pension Rules in so far as the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) released in their favour. A part of the COLA equivalent of 50% of their basic pay would be treated as basic pay for the purpose of computation of average emoluments." 14. The part of the Government Order No.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.3.1979 relevant to the present controversy, also warrants attention. A part of the COLA equivalent of 50% of their basic pay would be treated as basic pay for the purpose of computation of average emoluments." 14. The part of the Government Order No.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.3.1979 relevant to the present controversy, also warrants attention. Part-I (ii) (a) reads as under:- "Permanent Government servants (who had been confirmed against permanent posts or declared permanent in the Government Transport undertaking as on the date of formation of Road Transport Corporation and Quasi permanent Government servants within 5 years or Quasi Permanent service as on the date of formation of Road Transport Corporation have the option to either retain the pensionary benefits available to them under the government rules or be governed by the Rules of the Transport Corporation, if so far as it relates to the benefits consequent upon retirement case they exercise the former option, they will be entitled to receive their pension under pension rules as may be in force in the Government at the time of their retirement from the Corporation". The Government order concludes as follows:- "Government servants who opt for service in the Corporation will cease to be Government servants from the date of their exercising option, except for regulation of this pensionary benefits as under para ii(a). The said Government servant, will be deemed to be the employees of the Corporation and their service conditions so far as there relate to pay, allowance, leave, T.A. discipline and conduct etc. etc. except in respect of pensionary benefits will be governed by the rules of the Corporation". 15. The issues raised before the writ court as also in the Letters Patent Appeal on hand, makes it imperative to give a conjoint reading to Government Order No.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.3.1979, article 185-D(iv) and proviso to note-7 article 240-BB and proviso to article 242-BB Civil Service Regulations 1956. Such a reading would reveal that while the Government order No.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.3.1979 forms the baseline, the above reproduced regulations of J&K Civil Service Regulations 1956 supplement said order and reflect the benefits given by the State Government to the employees of Government Transport undertaking who on formation of J&K State Road Transport Corporation opted for service in the said corporation. 16. 16. It is pertinent to point out that all the employees of the erstwhile Government undertaking were initially taken on deputation in the State Road Transport Corporation from the date the Road Transport Corporation was set up on 1.9.1976. Once the service regulations for the employees of the Road Transport Corporation found approval in terms of section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, the employees of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking were given two options to be exercised and communicated to the respondent No.4. Such employees in terms of the said Government order No.25/TR dated 27.3.1979 had option not to continue in the Road Transport Corporation and in the event such an option was exercised the concerned employee was free to seek retirement from the Government service and receive pensionary benefits in case the employee was permanent or had five years Quasi Permanent service. In such case the employee would receive pensionary benefits from the Government as admissible under rules. The employee of the Government Transport Undertaking temporary or quasi permanent with less than five years service, could seek his discharge and receive terminal benefit from the Government as admissible under rules provided he did not contribute to C.P Fund. In case such temporary employee of the Government Transport Undertaking or a Quasi permanent employee with less than five years service contributed to the C.P Fund, he would ask for his termination of service and receive his contribution to the C.P. Fund with interest in full. The second option available to the employees of the Government Undertaking on deputation to the State Road Corporation was to opt for service in State Road Transport Corporation. In case, such an employee was a permanent Government Servant- confirmed against permanent post, or declared permanent in the Government Transport Undertaking as on 1.9.1976 or was Quasi permanent Government servant with five years quasi permanent service as on 1.9.1976 he would retain pensionary benefits available to him under the Government Rules or decide to be governed by the rules of the State Road Transport Corporation in so far as these related to the benefits consequent upon retirement. In the event an option was exercised in favour of retaining the pensionary benefits under Government Rules the employee would be entitled to receive pension as may be in force in the Government at the time of his retirement from the Corporation. In the event an option was exercised in favour of retaining the pensionary benefits under Government Rules the employee would be entitled to receive pension as may be in force in the Government at the time of his retirement from the Corporation. Except for the regulation of the pensionary benefits, the employee of the erstwhile Government Undertaking opting for service in the Road Transport Corporation, would cease to be a Government servant and deemed to be employee of the Corporation to whom the service conditions of the Corporation as regards pay, allowance, leave, TA, discipline and conduct etc would apply. 17. In terms of Article 185-D(IV) a Government servant transferred to the Autonomous Body/Public Sector Undertaking on the conversion of a Government Department into an Autonomous Body or Public Sector Undertaking, may opt to be governed by the pensionary benefits available in the Government and he shall at the time of his retirement, be entitled to pensionary benefits etc in accordance with the State Government Rules in force. While Regulation 185-D(iv) in general applies to all the Government employees who are transferred to an Autonomous Body/Public Sector Undertakings. Articles 240-BB and 242-BB are aimed at employees of the State Road Transport Corporation. In terms of proviso to Note 7 and Article 240-BB, 50% of Cost of Living Allowance is to be treated as basic pay for the purpose of retirement gratuity and computation of average emoluments. 18. The members of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 Association, as emphasized more than once, did not on their own approach the State Government for transfer of their services from Jammu & Kashmir Transport undertaking to the newly set up State Road Transport Corporation. It is nobody's case that the State Government gave an option to the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 Association to stay back with the Government as Government employees or to join the State Road Transport Corporation. Had the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 Association been given an option and had they in exercise of such option decided to join the State Road Transport Corporation, the applicant could have been possibly heard saying that the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 Association in view of the decision taken by them, were not entitled to claim any service benefits including the pensionary benefit from the State Government. Here the position is otherwise. Here the position is otherwise. The members of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 Association were sent on deputation to the Corporation and they exercised an option in favour of the pensionary benefits available to the Government employees. The State Government in the circumstances is duty bound to extend all benefits to the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 Association that would come their way because of their working in State Road Transport Corporation, irrespective of resources of the Corporation. The extension of benefits pensionary or otherwise available to them are not contingent upon the resources mobilization capacity of the State Road Transport Corporation. The duty to make all such aforesaid benefits available to them is primarily that of the State Government and cannot be denied on any ground including scarcity of resources. There may be an arrangement between the State Government and the State Road Transport Corporation where-under the State Government from time to time pumps in funds in the shape of loans and grants to the State Road Transport Corporation to enable it to have its head above water and not to be pushed to a "belly up" situation However, the benefits due to the members of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 Association do not hinge on such arrangement. 19. Viewed thus, the State Government is not only under duty to ensure that the unpaid dues on account of Deamess Allowance or Cost of Living Allowance are paid to them but also saddled with duty to settle their pension cases, having regard to the mandate of Article 240-BB & 242-BB and to add 50% of Cost Of Living Allowance, to the basic pay while working out their pensionary benefits. 20. In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed, there is no scope for any disagreement with the conclusions arrived at by the Writ Court. The judgment is based on correct appreciation of the case set up in the petition, and Rules governing the controversy. 21. For the reasons discussed, the appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.