1. This petition has been filed in representative capacity by the employees of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking through their registered union, seeking quashment of communication no. FD/RTI/7/2010 dated 06.07.2010 and Government order no.59-TR of 2003 dated 11.09.2003 rejecting their claim to pensionary benefits. Petitioners have also prayed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat them as temporary employees of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking (for short GTU) and release all pensionary benefits in their favour as has been done in case of other employees of the GTU. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they, having been appointed prior to 1976 initially on daily wage basis, were employees of the GTU, working against different Class IV posts, like Drivers, Conductors, Mechanics, Fitters, Cleaners, Bus Washers, and Sweepers etc. They were being paid dearness allowances as admissible under Government Rules in the same manner as was being paid to other staff employed in the GTU. It is further their case that they were also granted and extended all such benefits as were available to the regularly employed staff of the GTU, like, yearly casual leaves, medical leaves, holidays etc. It is further averred that on the basis of their length of such services, they had attained the status of temporary employees of the GTU and were entitled to be confirmed on their respective posts. However, before such eventuality would arise, the Government, vide order no.25-TR of 1979 dated 27.03.1979, decided to place the services of the employees of the GTU at the disposal of the J&K State Road Transport Corporation (for short Corporation) established on 01.09.1976 in pursuance of the Central Road Transport Corporation Act. Prior to the aforesaid order dated 27.03.1979, with the establishment of the Corporation on 01.09.1976, all the employees of the GTU were treated to be on deputation to the Corporation. While so doing, the Government, in terms of the aforesaid order dated 27.03.1979, gave different options to the various categories of employees of the GTU. 3. Prior to the aforesaid order dated 27.03.1979, with the establishment of the Corporation on 01.09.1976, all the employees of the GTU were treated to be on deputation to the Corporation. While so doing, the Government, in terms of the aforesaid order dated 27.03.1979, gave different options to the various categories of employees of the GTU. 3. One of the options given in terms of the aforesaid Government order dated 27.03.1979 stated that permanent Government servants (who have been confirmed against permanent posts or declared permanent in the Government Transport Undertaking as on the date of formation of the Road Transport Corporation) and quasi-permanent Government servants with 5 years or more quasi permanent service as on the date of formation of 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 Corporation, in so far as it related to the benefits consequent upon retirement. It was further provided that in case they exercised the former option, they would 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 case of the petitioners is that they were not extended the benefit of exercise of aforesaid option, though they were entitled to the same. 4. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioners represented to the Government and, after great persuasions, the Government issued Order no.38-GR(TR) of 1986 dated 03.10.1986 whereby it was ordered that all temporary employees of erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking, who had opted for temporary service in the SRTC or those employees who had opted for Corporation service in the SRTC in pursuance of Government Order no.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.03.1979 shall be given fresh option. Reference to the contents of this order would be made later in this judgment. It would suffice to mention at this stage that the right to exercise option contemplated by the aforesaid Government order was again not extended to the petitioners. It is averred that the petitioners again represented to the Government. Reference to the contents of this order would be made later in this judgment. It would suffice to mention at this stage that the right to exercise option contemplated by the aforesaid Government order was again not extended to the petitioners. It is averred that the petitioners again represented to the Government. Meanwhile, the Government addressed communication dated 30.05.1989 to the Accountant General of the State, stating therein, inter alia, as under: "e) The benefits available under the Government order no.39-TR of 1986 dated 03.10.1986 as clarified herein shall be available only to those temporary employee of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking who were in service as on 9.4.1969 or who had been appointed from 10.4.1969 to 31.8.1976 or have retired or may retire on or after 9.6.1981 after having rendered a minimum, continuous temporary service of 20 years on the date of retirement. f) The benefit available under Government order no.39-TR of 1986 dated 3.10.1986 as clarified above shall not be available to the said temporary employees of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking (as mentioned in clause (e) above who have retired before 9.6.1981 even after putting in 20 years of service". Simultaneously, there seems to have been a prolonged exchange of correspondence between the Government and the State Road Transport Corporation on the issue. 5. Since no decision was taken, the petitioners filed writ petition, SWP no.2844/1993. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.04.1996 with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' case. Since no action was taken even thereafter, the petitioners state that they filed Contempt Petition no.248/1996. Consequent upon issuance of notice in the aforesaid contempt petition, Government in the Transport Department, vide communication dated 24.04.1997, requested the Managing Director, J&K SRTC to intimate the annual financial implication on account of pension / time bound promotions to J&K SRTC employees. In response, the Corporation prepared the statement showing the financial implication for declaring the services of 565 daily wagers as pensionable Government employees on deputation to SRTC on the same terms and conditions as indicated in the order issued in 1979. The said statements sent to the Government in the Transport Department indicated the total financial implication involved at Rs. 24,50,33746.00. Almost six years thereafter, the Government, while referring to the interim direction of this Court passed in SWP no. 1045/2002 & CMP no. The said statements sent to the Government in the Transport Department indicated the total financial implication involved at Rs. 24,50,33746.00. Almost six years thereafter, the Government, while referring to the interim direction of this Court passed in SWP no. 1045/2002 & CMP no. 1820/2002, issued order no.59-TR of 2003 dated 11.09.2003, rejecting the claim of petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits. 6. The petitioners again approached this Court in SWP no.1896/2003, challenging the aforesaid order dated 11.09.2003. During the pendency of this petition, the Government addressed communication no.TR-06/2004/RTC/WP dated 28.04.2006 to the Corporation to the following effect: "Kindly refer to your letter No. JKSRTC/Pen-II/12-343 dated 20.02.2006 regarding the subject cited above. In this behalf, I am directed to say that the right to option in pursuance of Government order No. 38-TR of 1986 dated 03.10.1986 can be considered by this department on its merits subject to following conditions: i. The petitioners shall surrender all the benefits which have accrued / may accrue to them in the Corporation. ii. The petitioners shall withdraw all the cases / writ petitions / contempt petitions on the subject. I am, accordingly to request you to obtain the requisite undertakings and the withdrawal of court orders from the petitioners for onward submission to this department so as to enable this department to settle the case of the petitioners on its merits. Consequent upon the above assurances extended to the petitioners, it is averred in the petition, the petitioners not only furnished the requisite undertakings on behalf of its members, but also withdrew the writ petition which was dismissed as such vide order dated 08.06.2006 with liberty to file a fresh one, if cause arises. 7. It is averred in the petition that, thereafter, nothing was heard by the petitioners, nor any intimation was given to them as to the result of the process initiated by the Government. It was only through an information sought by the petitioner under Right to Information Act that the Under Secretary to Government, Finance Department, vide his communication dated 06.07.2010, informed them as under: "On the occasion of incorporating JK SRTC in 1979, the employees of erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking (GTU) were adjusted in the newly Corporation in light of the Cabinet Decision No. 51 dated 19.02.1979. The permanent employees of the GTUI were given two options, either to opt for Government pension or for the Corporation terminal benefits, and those who do not want to work in the Corporation could quit the service. The right of pensionary benefits to the erstwhile GTU Daily Wagers is not admissible for simple reason that neither they were the Government employees in the GTU nor they were regularized as Govt. Employees in the GTU. In fact, if any claim or terminal benefit flows to them, it shall be from the SRTC as they were regularized in the Corporation and were virtually employees of the Corporation." The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid decision contained in communication dated 06.07.2010 as also Government Order no.59-TR of 2003 dated 11.09.2003 in this petition. 8. The State respondents 1 to 3 as well as Corporation-respondents 4 and 5 have filed their respective reply affidavits. Respondents 1 to 3 have contested the claim of the petitioners. Their stand is that the petitioners (405 in number) were initially working in Government Transport Undertaking as daily wagers from 1960 to 1976 and at the time of conversion of GTU into State Road Transport Corporation all the employees permanent and temporary, including the present petitioners, were transferred to SRTC. Initially the right of the option was given to the employees of GTU who were permanent or had five years quasi-permanent service, to either retain pensionary benefits available to them under the Government rules or be governed by the rules of the Road Transport Corporation. Subsequently, this right was extended to temporary employees of erstwhile GTU vide order no.38-GR(TR) of 1986 dated 03.10.1986 who had opted for temporary service in the SRTC or those employees who had opted for Corporation service in the SRTC pursuant to Government order dated 27.03.1979. It is admitted in the reply affidavit that this right was not given to the present petitioners and those who had retired from the service prior to 09.06.1981. It is stated that the issue was challenged by the persons who had retired prior to 09.06.1981 on the basis that since there was no difference between the in-service and retired employees in the Government order dated 03.10.1986, they had been discriminated insofar as the benefit of order dated 03.10.1986 had not been given to them. It is stated that the issue was challenged by the persons who had retired prior to 09.06.1981 on the basis that since there was no difference between the in-service and retired employees in the Government order dated 03.10.1986, they had been discriminated insofar as the benefit of order dated 03.10.1986 had not been given to them. It is averred in the reply affidavit that the issue was ultimately decided by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 9392 of 1996 titled Dhanraj v. State of J&K by judgment rendered on 30.03.1998, holding the petitioners/appellants therein entitled to pensionary benefits. It is stated that, vide Government order no.06-TR of 2000 dated 14.02.2000, in compliance to the Apex Court judgment, the pensionary benefits were extended to 110 retired employees of erstwhile GTU who were temporary employees in the GTU. However, it is averred that the present petitioners were neither permanent nor temporary employees of the GTU and thus the above benefit was not allowed to them. It is also stated in the reply affidavit that the matter had been taken up with the Finance Department and that the Finance Department rejected the proposal observing that "the right of pensionary benefits to the erstwhile GTU daily wagers is not admissible for the simple reason that neither they were Government employees in the GTU, nor they were regularized as Government employees in the GTU." 9. Respondents 4 and 5 in their counter affidavit have stated that the petitioners were neither permanent nor temporary employees of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking and thus, at the time of conversion of the said Government Department into the State Road Transport Corporation, they were not given any kind of option and, therefore, the petitioners have absolutely no claim. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 11. As becomes axiomatic from the stance of the respondents, result of this petition is hinged on determination of the status of the petitioners as it obtained on the date of issue of Government Order no.25-TR of 1979 dated 27.03.1979 whereby the Government had accorded sanction to the placement of services of the employees of erstwhile GTU at the disposal of the Corporation and had given option to them. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, though the petitioners were initially appointed on daily wage basis from the year 1960 onwards, but on the relevant date they were holding regular pay scales, were paid dearness allowances and were extended all such benefits, like casual leaves, medical leaves and holidays, as were being given to other employees of the GTU. The learned counsel submitted that in face of such facts, it is not open to the respondents to claim that on the relevant date the petitioners were working on daily wage basis and, therefore, could not have been extended the benefit of exercise of the option in question. Alternatively, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408 , the learned counsel submitted that even assuming so, daily wagers are temporary employees and, therefore, the petitioners fell within the category of `temporary employees' -- the terminology used by the Government in its orders dated 27.03.1979 and 03.10.1986. Consequently, they were entitled to be treated at par with those of the employees of the GTU who had been extended the right to exercise option in question. It is submitted that since the respondents have failed to extend such benefit to the petitioners, the petitioners have been subjected to invidious discrimination and their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have been grossly violated. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Government orders dated 27.03.1979 and 03.10.1986 made it expressly clear that the option in question would be available only to temporary employees of the GTU. Since the petitioners were only daily wagers, they were not entitled to exercise the option in question and, therefore, such right could not be extended to them. Learned counsel further submitted that 39 of such employees had filed a writ petition, SWP no. 1403/2002 before the Jammu wing of this Court, raising identical pleas, which was dismissed by the Court vide judgment dated 06.12.2005 and that the judgment has assumed finality. Therefore, the present writ petition is hit by res judicata. 14. It may be observed here that neither the petitioners nor the respondents have placed any document on record as would conclusively establish the factum of the status of the petitioners in the erstwhile GTU on the relevant date. Therefore, the present writ petition is hit by res judicata. 14. It may be observed here that neither the petitioners nor the respondents have placed any document on record as would conclusively establish the factum of the status of the petitioners in the erstwhile GTU on the relevant date. However, the Government order dated 27.03.1979 itself describes the different categories of employees, who on the relevant date were working in the GTU and constituted and comprised its employees, whose services were placed at the disposal of the Corporation. The said Government order has divided such employees into three categories, namely: i) Permanent Government servants, who had been confirmed against permanent posts or declared permanent in the GTU on the date of formation of the Corporation; ii) Quasi-permanent Government servants with 5 years or more quasi-permanent service as on the date of formation of the Corporation; and iii) Temporary Government servants who did or did not enjoy CP Fund benefits in the GTU at the time of formation of the Corporation. There is no other category of employees, whose services were placed at the disposal of the Corporation, visualized by the aforesaid Government order dated 27.03.1979. There is no dispute about the fact that pursuant to the aforesaid Government order, services of the petitioners, too, were placed at the disposal of the Corporation. It is not the case of the respondents that the placement of the services of the petitioners at the disposal of the Corporation were governed by any separate Government order or any set of other terms and conditions framed by the Government in that behalf. In fact, no other document has been brought on record of this petition by the respondents to show that the petitioners had to be governed by any other mechanism. It is thus clear that, as on the date of issuance of Government order dated 27.03.1979, the petitioners had either attained the status of temporary employees of the GTU or had been so treated by the Government while issuing Government order dated 27.03.1979, which Government order had been issued pursuant to Cabinet Decision no.51 dated 19.02.1979 mentioned in the order itself. Otherwise, in isolation of the aforesaid Government order dated 27.03.1979, there was no way or mechanism whereby the petitioners services could have been accepted by the Corporation. Otherwise, in isolation of the aforesaid Government order dated 27.03.1979, there was no way or mechanism whereby the petitioners services could have been accepted by the Corporation. If the petitioners were not governed by the said Government order, how have they been accepted by the Corporation is not clarified by the respondents. It is, therefore, legally inferable that petitioners, in the aforesaid Government order, had in fact been treated as temporary employees of the GTU and their services, too, were placed at the disposal of Corporation which consequently accepted their services like other permanent, quasi-permanent and temporary employees. 15. Now the question is as to what is the nature of option that was extended to the temporary employees of GTU under Government order dated 27.03.1979. In this connection, it would be advantageous to extract hereunder the relevant clauses of the aforesaid Government order: "Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that:- i. Government servants whose services have been placed at the disposal of the Road Transport Corporation, but who do not want to continue in the said Corporation have the option to: (a) seek retirement from Government service (if they are permanent or have 5 years quasi-permanent service) and receive pensionary benefits from the Government as may be admissible to them under rules; (b) ask for their discharge from service if they are temporary Government servants or quasi-permanent servants with less than 5 years service not contributing to C. P. Fund and receive terminal gratuity benefits from Government as may be admissible to them under rules; (c) ask for their termination of services if they are temporary with C. P. Fund benefits and receive employees contribution on their C. P. Fund with interest in full alongwith their own contribution. ii. Government servants who opt for service in the Road Transport Corporation shall have the following options: (a) permanent government servants (who have 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 with 5 years or more 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 Road Transport Corporation, insofar as it relates to the benefits consequent upon retirement. In case they exercise the formal 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; (b) ................... (c) ................... (d) in cases of all temporary government servants who did not enjoy C. P. Fund benefits in the Government Transport Undertaking at the time of formation of Road Transport Corporation and such of the permanent Government servants and quasi-permanent Government savants referred to in (a) above as may opt for rule (C. P. Fund benefits) of the Corporation, the Government will pay to the Corporation the C. P. Fund contribution and interest thereon ......; (e) ........... Government servants who opt for service in the Corporation will cease to be Government servants from the date of their exercising option for regulation of this pensionary benefit as under para (IIa). The said Government servants will be deemed to have been the employees of the Corporation and their service conditions so far as they relate to pay, allowances, leave, TA, discipline and conduct etc. etc. except in respect of pensionary benefits will be governed by the rules of the Corporation". It is important to note that under sub-clauses (b) and (c) of clause (1) of the order, the temporary employees were also termed as `Government Servants' and were given the option to seek discharge from service if they had less than 5 years of service and were not contributing to CP Fund, or seek termination of service if they were contributing to CP Fund. The order, however, is silent as to what would happen to such temporary Government servants, whether contributing to CP Fund or not, if they did not choose for either of the two options of discharge or termination. Nonetheless, it becomes axiomatic from the introductory / preamble clauses contained in the order that all the employees of the GTU had been taken on deputation in the Corporation with effect from 01.09.1976, i.e., the date on which the Corporation had been established, and subsequently vide order dated 27.03.1979 their services were placed at the disposal of the Corporation. Nonetheless, it becomes axiomatic from the introductory / preamble clauses contained in the order that all the employees of the GTU had been taken on deputation in the Corporation with effect from 01.09.1976, i.e., the date on which the Corporation had been established, and subsequently vide order dated 27.03.1979 their services were placed at the disposal of the Corporation. For facility of ready reference, the introductory / preamble clauses of the Government order are reproduced below: "Whereas in pursuance of the Central Road Transport Corporation Act, the Government established the J&K Road Transport Corporation by conversion of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking on 01.09.1976; And whereas all the employees of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking were taken on deputation in the Road Transport Corporation from the said date; And whereas, in pursuance of Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Act, approval of the Government has been conveyed to the adoption of services regulations made in terms of Section 45(1) of the said Act; And whereas the Government has considered it expedient to place the services of the employees of the erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking at the disposal of the Road Transport Corporation." The order, as is evident from its perusal, did not make any distinction between permanent, quasi-permanent or temporary employees of the GTU in so far as their collective deputation to, and placement of their services at the disposal of, the Corporation was concerned. There is no dispute, and, in fact, it is admitted by the respondents, that the petitioners were treated as temporary employees in the Corporation. Even otherwise, once the petitioners, being the temporary employees of the GTU, did not opt for either their discharge or termination, it has to be construed that they had opted for temporary service of the Corporation. 16. A perusal of the Government order dated 27.03.1979 further makes it clear that the option, as had been given under clause (ii)(a) thereof to the permanent government servants and quasi-permanent Government servants having more than 5 years service, was not given to the temporary government servants or quasi permanent servants with less than 5 years service not contributing to C. P. Fund in the GTU. 17. 17. However, subsequently, vide Government order no.38-GR(TR) of 1986 dated 03.10.1986, stated by the petitioners to have been issued only after they had vigorously pursued the matter with the Government right from 1979, the Government ordered as under: "It is hereby ordered that all temporary employees of erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking, who have opted for temporary service in the SRTC, or those employees who have opted for Corporation service in the SRTC in pursuance of Government order no.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.03.1979 shall be given a fresh option to: (a) retain the retirement benefits that they have already availed of from the SRTC; or (b) refund these retirement benefits comprising of excess extent of retirement Gratuity, the employees contribution of G. P. Fund with interest paid thereon plus interest on the total amount (Gratuity and bonus) @ 9% per annum, with effect from the date of payment of these amounts upto the date preceding that on which the same are refunded and draw the pension benefits under the normal rules applicable to the permanent Government employees of SRTC in lieu thereof with effect from the date of superannuation provided that: (i) the aforementioned option indicated in (b) above shall be available to the temporary employees of erstwhile Government Transport Undertaking who have opted for temporary service in pursuance of Government Order no. 88-FST of 1969 dated 9.4.1969 and government order no. 113-FST of 1972 dated 7.3.1972 and also to those of such employees who have opted for Corporation service in pursuance of Government order no.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.3.1979; (ii) The option now exercised shall be final and shall be available for a period of three months from the date of issue of formal notification in this behalf; (iii) The Government shall not be held accountable for delay which may take place in sanction of pension by the Accountant General after completion of necessary formalities." The aforesaid Government order clearly provided that temporary employees of the erstwhile GTU shall be given a fresh option. The grievance of the petitioners is that the right to opt as provided by the aforesaid order was not given to them. 18. Mr. The grievance of the petitioners is that the right to opt as provided by the aforesaid order was not given to them. 18. Mr. Haqani, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 contended that the option contemplated by aforesaid Government order dated 03.10.1986 was available to only those of the temporary employees of erstwhile GTU who had opted for temporary service in pursuance of Government order no.88-FST of 1969 dated 09.04.1969 and Government order no. l13-FST of 1972 dated 07.03.1972. It is not the case of the respondents that the option envisaged by the aforesaid two Government orders dated 09.04.1969 and 07.03.1972 had been offered to, extended and put to the petitioners at the relevant time and that they had refused to exercise such option. Perusal of the judgment in the case titled Thakur Dass & ors. v. State of J&K & ors., SWP no. 1403/2002, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jammu on 06.12.2005, relied upon by Mr. Haqani in this regard, reveals that the grievance of the petitioners therein was that they were daily wagers in the GTU and that they were not given option at the time of issuance of order dated 09.04.1969. In the instant case it is the positive case of the petitioners that they were temporary employees of the Corporation, inasmuch, it is contended that, besides holding regular pay scales, they were extended all the benefits as were available to permanent and quasi-permanent employees, like dearness allowance, casual leave, medical leaves, holidays etc. Such benefits are not made available to daily wagers. Therefore, the judgment relied upon is distinguishable on facts. 19. It be further seen that proviso (i) to option (b) contained in Government order dated 03.10.1986 unambiguously provides "and also to those of such employees who have opted for Corporation service in pursuance of Government order no.25/TR of 1979 dated 27.03.1979". The word `such' has reference to the temporary employees. As already held above, the petitioners were treated as temporary employees of GTU in Government order dated 27.03.1979 and had been accepted as temporary employees of the Corporation, therefore, there was no reason or justification, much less plausible, for the respondents to deny them the right of exercising the option envisaged and contemplated by Government order dated 03.10.1986. As already held above, the petitioners were treated as temporary employees of GTU in Government order dated 27.03.1979 and had been accepted as temporary employees of the Corporation, therefore, there was no reason or justification, much less plausible, for the respondents to deny them the right of exercising the option envisaged and contemplated by Government order dated 03.10.1986. A right had accrued to the petitioners to exercise their option pursuant to the aforesaid Government order dated 03.10.1986 and denial thereof to them violates their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 20. It is worthwhile to observe here that after issuance of Government order dated 03.10.1986, those of the employees of the erstwhile GTU, who had retired prior to June 1981, are stated to have filed writ petition, SWP No. 1413/2009, titled Dhanraj & ors v. State of J&K & Ors., seeking the right to opt, on the ground that the Government order in question did not make any distinction between retirees and in-service employees. The writ petition was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, on appeal by the respondents, however, dismissed the writ petition. The matter seems to have ultimately come up before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.9392 of 1996 which was decided on 30.03.1998. Neither of the parties has produced a copy of the aforesaid judgment for perusal of the Court. However, in paragraph 2 of their counter affidavit, respondents 1 to 3 have made the following averments in that regard: "That this right was not given to the present petitioners as well as to those who had retired from the service prior to 9th June, 1981. The issue was challenge by the persons who retired prior to 9th June, 1981 on the basis that since there is no discrimination between the in-service and retired employees in the Government order dated 03.10.1986 still the benefit of order dated 03.10.1986 has not been given to them. The issue was ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9392 of 1996 titled Dhanraj and other v. State and others and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 30.03.1998 held as under: `For the aforesaid reasons and the findings recorded on the matter and circumstances of this case the appeal stands allowed. The issue was ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9392 of 1996 titled Dhanraj and other v. State and others and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 30.03.1998 held as under: `For the aforesaid reasons and the findings recorded on the matter and circumstances of this case the appeal stands allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 6th September, 1998 passed in LPA No. 62 of 1993 is set aside. The appellants would be entitled for pensionary benefits in terms of stand held by Ld. Single Judge in its order dated 29th June, 1993. On the facts and circumstances of the case, cost on the parties.' In compliance to Hon'ble Apex Court order the pensionary benefits were also extended to 110 Retired employees of erstwhile GTU who were temporary employees in the GTU vide Government order No. 06-TR of 2000 dated 14.02.2000." (Highlighting and emphasis supplied) Above being the position admitted by none other than the respondents 1 to 3, it cannot, and should not, lie in their mouth that the petitioners were and/or are not entitled to the option envisaged by Government order dated 03.10.1986 or that their case was and/or is different from the petitioners in the aforesaid case. Reference in this connection may also be made to the communication dated 30.05.1989 addressed by the Government in the Transport Department to the Accountant General of the State. The letter in its clause (e) makes it clear that the benefits available under the Government order no.39-TR of 1986 dated 03.10.1986 (sic for order no.38-TR) shall be available to those temporary employees of the GTU who were in service as on 09.04.1969 or who had been appointed from 10.04.1969 to 31.08.1976 or have retired or may retire on or after 09.06.1981 after having rendered a minimum continuous temporary service of 20 years on the date of retirement. It is not clear whether the petitioners were in service as on 09.04.1969, but, admittedly, they had been appointed prior to 31.08.1976 and, therefore, fell within the category of those employees who were appointed from 10.04.1969 to 31.08.1976, and, consequently, entitled to pension in terms of the above clarification as well. 21. It was next argued that the petitioners were neither permanent nor temporary employees of the GTU, and, therefore, the above benefit was not allowed to them. This argument has already been dealt with. 21. It was next argued that the petitioners were neither permanent nor temporary employees of the GTU, and, therefore, the above benefit was not allowed to them. This argument has already been dealt with. However, it is reiterated that the said plea is belied by the Government order dated 27.03.1979 itself which categorized the employees of the erstwhile GTU in Permanent, quasi-permanent and temporary employees only. It is reiterated that this Government order was issued on the basis of a Cabinet Decision. If they were neither permanent nor temporary employees of the GTU, how could they be deputed to the Corporation and how their services could be placed at the disposal of the Corporation, terming them as `Government servants' as well as `employees of GTU'? Mere saying would not alter the facts as reflected in Government order dated 27.03.1979 based on a Cabinet Decision. 22. Coming to the impugned Government order dated 11.09.2003, it proceeds to reject the claim of the petitioners only on the ground that "the petitioners could not avail the benefits of the Government order No. 38-GR(TR) of 1986 dated 03.10.1986 since they were daily wagers on 11.08.1976". Such a plea, as already mentioned, is contrary to the decisions taken by the Cabinet and reflected in Government order dated 27.03.1979. The respondents have sought to subject the petitioners to a classification not envisaged or visualized by Government order dated 27.03.1979. The classification sought to be made is only artificial and not envisaged by Government order dated 27.03.1979. It is settled law that classification must be based on intelligible criteria and such criteria must have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Obviously, the object of the Cabinet Decision and the Government order seems to have been to categorize the employees of the GTU in three definite groups, namely, permanent, quasi-permanent and temporary employees and place the services of all such employees at the disposal of the Corporation. The respondents are seeking to introduce another category of employees in the Government order dated 27.03.1997, and, I may say, in the Cabinet Decision on which the aforesaid Government order was founded, which they cannot do unless the order dated 27.03.1997 was amended, altered or modified in accordance with the applicable norms. Admittedly, that has not been done so far. The respondents are seeking to introduce another category of employees in the Government order dated 27.03.1997, and, I may say, in the Cabinet Decision on which the aforesaid Government order was founded, which they cannot do unless the order dated 27.03.1997 was amended, altered or modified in accordance with the applicable norms. Admittedly, that has not been done so far. Consequently, any such action as is aimed at altering the classification of the employees of the GTU made in Government order dated 27.03.1979 based on a Cabinet Decision would be rendered illegal and unconstitutional. 23. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also referred to Article 177-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, recast vide Finance Department Notification SRO no. 154 dated 28.04.1997 read with SRO no.451 dated 12.10.1999, to contend that the petitioners are entitled to count part of their service in GTU as qualifying for pension. Since, I have already come to a definite conclusion that the impugned orders are not sustainable; any other ground taken by the petitioners need not be dealt with. 24. It also needs to be observed here that in terms of communication dated 28.04.2006, the Government in the Transport Department had extended a clear assurance to the petitioners that right to exercise the option in pursuance of Government order no.38-TR of 1986 dated 03.10.1986 can be considered by the Government in case the petitioners shall surrender all the benefits which had accrued / may accrue to them in the Corporation and the petitioners shall withdraw all the cases / writ petitions / contempt petition. The petitioner duly believed in the aforesaid assurance and altered their position to their disadvantage, inasmuch as they withdrew the writ petition and furnished the requisite undertakings. The respondents are estopped from going back on their promise and turning round to say that the petitioners were only daily wagers and, therefore, could not be extended the right to exercise the option. The said action of the respondents is clearly hit by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. On that ground also, the impugned orders are not sustainable. 25. In light of the above, it is held that in terms of the Government order dated 27.03.1979, the petitioners were treated as temporary employees and, therefore, they were governed by the Government order dated 03.10.1986. On that ground also, the impugned orders are not sustainable. 25. In light of the above, it is held that in terms of the Government order dated 27.03.1979, the petitioners were treated as temporary employees and, therefore, they were governed by the Government order dated 03.10.1986. Consequently, they were entitled to be given the right to exercise their option in terms of the said government orders. 26. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned Government order dated 11.09.2003 read with the order contained in the impugned communication dated 06.07.2010 addressed by Under Secretary to Government, Finance Department to the petitioner are quashed. Any Government order on the basis of which the contents of the impugned communication dated 06.07.2010 are based shall be treated as declared inconsequential and ineffective. The respondents in general, and respondents 1 to 3, in particular, are directed to take immediate necessary steps to make the offer of exercise of the requisite option to the petitioners. In case any of the members of the petitioner union has retired, the benefit of option shall also be extended to such retired employee. Needless to mention, that the benefit shall be made available and extended to deceased members of the petitioner union as well. Depending upon the option so exercised by the members of the petitioner union, the respondents shall take further steps to settle the matters. The needful shall be done within three months from the date a copy of this judgment is served on the respondents. 27. This is a case where petty government servants have been engaged in attritional litigation by the respondents for decades together. The conduct of the State-respondents as reflected in this judgment, particularly their asking the petitioners to withdraw court cases and then resile from the assurance extended to the petitioners, would warrant award of costs. However, taking a lenient view, I refrain from making any such order. Let the parties bear their respective costs.