JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. By the medium of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have called in question the validity of order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1755/2012. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that appellant No. 1 is a body incorporated under Section 39 [Power to give instructions to Financial Corporation on questions of policy (1) In the discharge of its functions, the Board shall be guided by such instructions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government in consultation with and after obtaining the advice of the Small Industries Bank. (2) If any dispute arises between the State Government and the Board as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy, the decision of the State Government shall be final. (2A) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-s. (2) shall apply in a case where a State Government holds less than fifty-one per cent of the equity shares in the Financial Corporation. (2B) Notwithstanding the equity share holding of a Financial Corporation by a State Government, the State Government may advise the Financial Corporations on the matters of policy. (3) If the Board fails to carry out the instructions on the question of policy laid down by the State Government under sub-section (1) of this section or the instructions given to the Board under sub-section (4) of section 37A, the State Government shall have the power to supersede the Board and appoint a new Board in its place to function until a properly constituted Board is set up, the decision of the State Government as to the grounds for superseding the Board shall not be questioned in any court.] of the [Central Act No. 63 of 1951-Ed.] Jammu and Kashmir Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 39 of the Act mandates that the Corporation shall be governed by the policy decision taken by the State Government. Section 39(2) provides that in the event of a dispute between the State Government and the Board, the decision of the State Government would be final. Vide Government order dated 17.11.2009, a policy decision was taken, granting sanction to the revision of pay scale to the employees working in the Jammu & Kashmir State Financial Corporation with effect from 01.01.2006. Section 39(2) provides that in the event of a dispute between the State Government and the Board, the decision of the State Government would be final. Vide Government order dated 17.11.2009, a policy decision was taken, granting sanction to the revision of pay scale to the employees working in the Jammu & Kashmir State Financial Corporation with effect from 01.01.2006. The Board of Directors of the Corporation in its meeting held on 01.09.2010 had considered the proposal regarding implementation of the 6th Pay Commission and in its meeting held on 19.04.2011 approved the implementation of revision in the pay scale and other allowances to the employees of the Corporation. It was decided that the benefit of the revised pay scale would be given with effect from 01.04.2011. Thereafter, the respondents approached this Court by filing SWP No. 1755/2012, in which the respondents sought quashment of order dated 11.06.2011 as well as writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the benefit of 6th Pay Commission in favour of the respondents in terms of order dated 17.11.2009 up to their respective date of retirement. The respondents also prayed for a direction to the appellants herein to grant benefit of [2009 (8) JK Statutes JK-248] SRO 94, dated 15.04.2009 and calculate their gratuity accordingly. 2. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.10.2016 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents, appellants herein, to consider the case of the writ petitioners eligible for grant of revised pay scale notionally with effect from 01.01.2006. It was further held that the writ petitioners shall also be entitled to all retiral benefits, including gratuity etc. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants has only taken decision to grant benefit of revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006 notionally to the serving employees of the Corporation and since the respondents have been superannuated in the year, 2011, therefore, they are not entitled to the aforesaid benefit. It is also argued that the appellants have not adopted the SRO 94, dated 15.04.2009, therefore, learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the respondents-writ petitioners are not entitled to the gratuity. 4. It is also argued that the appellants have not adopted the SRO 94, dated 15.04.2009, therefore, learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the respondents-writ petitioners are not entitled to the gratuity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that the respondents are entitled to the benefit under SRO 94, dated 15.04.2009. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. By a resolution dated 10.08.2015, the Board of Directors of the appellants' Corporation had taken a decision with regard to the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.10.2006 up to 01.04.2011. However, it is pertinent to mention here that certain employees, namely, Mohd. Farooq, Managing Director, Mohd. Rafiq and Mohammad Ashraf Shah, Deputy General Manager and Assistant General Manager respectively, working in the Corporation, were given the benefit of revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006. Similarly, one Supervisor, namely, Ghulam Mohammad Dar was also given the benefit revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006. The aforesaid aspect of the matter was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, stand was taken that pay fixation had been allowed by the Corporation to its employees notionally with effect from 01.01.2006 only to the serving employees. 6. Admittedly, the decision was taken to grant the notional benefit with effect from 01.01.2006. Therefore, the respondents, who were in employment, could not have been deprived of the aforesaid benefit, in absence of any rational and reasonable criteria. The learned Single Judge has rightly held the respondents to the benefit of revised pay scale notionally with effect from 01.01.2006. However, in view of the stand taken by the appellants that they have not adopted SRO 94, dated 15.04.2009, the direction insofar as it pertains to grant of gratuity is hereby modified and it is directed that in case SRO 94, dated 15.04.2009 has been adopted by the appellants and the benefit of the aforesaid SRO has already been given to the employees of the appellant-Corporation, the same benefit shall also be extended to the respondents. To the aforesaid extent, order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Caveat shall also stand discharged.