JUDGMENT 1. Case set up by the petitioner is that her husband, namely Deewan Chand was appointed in the respondent Industries Department in the year 1954. On reaching superannuation has retired on 27.11.1978 from Modern Rosin Turpentine Factory, Miran Sahib, Jammu. 2. In the petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction in the name of respondents so as to command them to release all benefits of her husband including arrears, pension, gratuity, G.P. Fund and consequential benefits of service with 18% interest from the due date of payment. 3. In the reply as filed by respondents No. 2 to 4 it is stated in para 9 that the husband of the petitioner retired in the year 1978 received retiral claims under J&K Industries Employees Service Rules. The position as was then was neither challenged by the husband of the petitioner nor was he party in the appeals as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 27.02.2002. In the reply it is further stated that the employees of the J&K Industries Ltd. cannot claim benefits because J&K Industries Ltd. is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has decided an identical petition bearing SWP No. 1492/2006 captioned Smt. Santosh Kumari v. State of J&K & Ors vide judgment dated 2nd November, 2007. In the said judgment respondents therein were directed to release pension and retiral benefits in favour of the peti-tioner therein as were due to her husband. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents were pointedly asked as to whether the said judgment has been challenged who stated that to their information same has not been challenged, instead has been implemented. However, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot claim the benefits because the petitioner was not a party to the petition, therefore, benefit of that judgment cannot be extended to the petitioner. This position too had been projected in the aforesaid judgment rendered in SWP No. 1492/2006. 6. The judgment rendered in SWP No. 1492/2006 squarely covers case of the petitioner, therefore, instant petition shall stand disposed of in terms of said judgment. At this stage learned counsel Mr. This position too had been projected in the aforesaid judgment rendered in SWP No. 1492/2006. 6. The judgment rendered in SWP No. 1492/2006 squarely covers case of the petitioner, therefore, instant petition shall stand disposed of in terms of said judgment. At this stage learned counsel Mr. Khajuria submits that the records of husband of the petitioner are not forthcoming from the records of the department, therefore, difficulty will be faced in processing his case for grant of benefits. It shall be open for the respondents to prepare the papers and in the process also to seek assistance from the petitioner. 7. Disposed of as above. Petition disposed of