JUDGMENT : 1. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is sufficient. Delay of 72 days in filing the Special Appeal Defective No. 94 of 2019, 125 days in filing the Special Appeal Defective No. 170 of 2019, 119 days in filing the Special Appeal Defective No. 171 of 2019, 118 days in filing the Special Appeal Defective No. 162 of 2019, 89 days in filing the Special Appeal Defective No. 116 of 2019, 104 days in filing the Special Appeal Defective No. 135 of 2019, 104 days in filing the Special Appeal Defective No. 136 of 2019 and 118 days in filing the Special Appeal Defective No. 161 of 2019 are condoned. 2. Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, Sri Puneet Chandra and Sri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 41 and Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 42, i.e., U.P. Handicrafts Development and Marketing Corporation Ltd. 3. The present bunch of appeals have been filed against the order dated 26.11.2018 passed in four writ petitions filed by the employees of U.P. Handicrafts Development and Marketing Corporation Ltd., whereby the learned Writ Court has allowed the writ petitions by declaring restrictive conditions imposed by the Government Orders dated 11.09.2009, 16.10.2009 and 03.01.2017 to be illegal, arbitrary, not applicable and were quashed with a direction to the authorities to implement the recommendations of the 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commissions with regard to the employees of the U.P. Handicrafts Development and Marketing Corporation Ltd. from the date the same is implemented with regard to the State Government employees within three months. 4. All appeals arise out of order dated 26.11.2018 and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. The facts are taken from Special Appeal (Defective) No. 94 of 2019. 5. In the year 1966, U.P. Handicrafts Development and Marketing Corporation Ltd. (formerly-U.P. Export Corporation Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') was formed and registered as a Public Corporation under the Companies Act, 1956. 100% paid up capital of the Corporation was owned by the State of U.P. The respondent no. 42 is Government Corporation as per section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. 100% paid up capital of the Corporation was owned by the State of U.P. The respondent no. 42 is Government Corporation as per section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. All the private respondents are employees of the said Corporation. The primary purpose for establishment of the Corporation was to develop, promote and export the handicrafts and other various products manufactured by the small scale sector of the State. The products so manufactured were exported, displayed and sold by the Corporation, through its showrooms popularly knowns as 'Gangotri'. The respondent no. 42-the Corporation works as an agency of the State Government, for promotion of export from the State of U.P., as per policy of the State Government. As per Article of Association, the Governor of U.P. has right to appoint and remove the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Board of Directors of the Corporation. Even for making capital expenditure exceeding Rs. 10 Lakhs and acquisition of capital assets of an immovable nature, it compulsorily requires approval of the Governor of the State. Different Government officers are appointed as its Chairman and Directors. By order dated 31.03.1971, the handicrafts division of the Government of U.P., functioning under the Director of Industries, U.P., was merged with the Corporation. The employees of the said handicraft division of the State were absorbed in the Corporation. By a Government Order dated 21.03.1975 it was further clarified that the employees/officers of the Public Enterprises/Corporations are public servant as defined under Section 21 of the I.P.C. In the year 1982, U.P. Export Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1982 were framed after receiving approval from the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of U.P. and the services of the employees of the Corporation are till date covered by the same. Large number of State Government employees worked on deputation with the Corporation. Broadly, the Rules, Regulations and Service Conditions of the Corporation are similar to the State Government employees in all respects. Rule-32 of the Service Rules provides that the pay of the employees appointed on promotion from lower grade shall be fixed as per Government Financial Handbook Volume-2 Part II-IV. Similarly, Regulation-36 provides for payment of dearness allowance to the employees of the Corporation as and when it is declared by the State Government to its employees. Regulations 37, 40 and 42 also provide for other amenities and allowances, traveling allowance and leave etc. Similarly, Regulation-36 provides for payment of dearness allowance to the employees of the Corporation as and when it is declared by the State Government to its employees. Regulations 37, 40 and 42 also provide for other amenities and allowances, traveling allowance and leave etc. to be the same as available to the State Government employees. 6. The employees of the Corporation are bound by the guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time, Controlling Departments being the Bureau of Public Enterprises. Up to the 4th Pay Commission, the recommendations made by the Pay Commission were duly implemented in the Corporation, along with the employees of the State Government. Thereafter, from 5th Pay Commission, the State Government has not implemented the said recommendations in the Corporation. The salaries of the employees stand seized to what they were getting after implementation of the 4th Pay Commission, which was given effect to in January, 1990. The employees of the Corporation filed four writ petitions for implementation of the Pay Commissions. As no decision was taken, therefore, in the writ petition orders were passed from time to time for taking decision. The Government of U.P. has issued three Government Orders, which were impugned in the writ petitions. 7. As per Government Order dated 11.09.2009 the benefits of the dearness allowance would be available only to the employees of such Public Enterprises which have their own financial capacity to bear the same. The Government Order dated 16.10.2009 provides that the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission would be available only if the records of the Public Enterprises for the last three years are audited by the Auditor General and accepted by the A.G.M., the enterprises having cumulative loss in last three years and have gained net profits, the additional burden can be borne by the Public Enterprises itself. As per the Government Order dated 03.01.2017 the State Government will not grant any financial help. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the employees before the Writ Court was that the impugned Government Orders dated 11.09.2009, 16.10.2009 and 03.01.2017 are discriminatory. Financial capacity or otherwise can be no ground for denial of revision of wages of employees of the Corporation. The denial of revision of pay-scale would violate the fundamental rights of the employees. The denial of revision of pay-scale on the ground that the Corporation is sustaining loss is of no ground. Financial capacity or otherwise can be no ground for denial of revision of wages of employees of the Corporation. The denial of revision of pay-scale would violate the fundamental rights of the employees. The denial of revision of pay-scale on the ground that the Corporation is sustaining loss is of no ground. The incident of losses are not attributable to the conduct of employees or workers. They placed reliance on the decision of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2203) 6 SCC 1 and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal and others, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 375 and submitted that the employees of Corporation, had been getting pay scale, which was given effect to in January, 1990 and earlier under the similar circumstances they were granted the implementation of 4th Pay Commission and prayed that they are entitled for the benefits of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission. The change of policy affected by the Government Orders dated 11.09.2009, 16.10.2009 and 03.01.2017 was that the Government would not provide any support for the revision of Pay Scale and the Corporation themselves will have to bear additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of Pay Scale. 9. The stand of the Corporation was that the rates of Dearness Allowances have been subjected to revision from time to time by the State Government for the officers and employees of the Public Enterprises/Corporation with certain conditions and now the employees are getting D.A. at the rate of 287%. It is also stated that in the financial year 2008-09, the Corporation had suffered accumulated losses to the tune of Rs. 23.10 Crores and the Corporation had closed down its two permanent schemes, namely, Carpet Weeving Training Scheme and Chikan Production Scheme. As per Article 3 of Memorandum of Articles of Association, 51% of total shares of Corporation are held by the Governor and remaining 49% shares are under control of Board of Company. As per Article 136, the Government of U.P. had effective control over the Corporation. In the financial year 2017-18, the total accumulated losses are 24.16 Crores. The loan was provided by the State Government from time to time to meet out various obligations and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. As per Article 136, the Government of U.P. had effective control over the Corporation. In the financial year 2017-18, the total accumulated losses are 24.16 Crores. The loan was provided by the State Government from time to time to meet out various obligations and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. In the aforesaid background the learned Writ Court relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal and others (Supra) has held that the State Government as well as Corporation cannot escape from their liability to pay the benefits of the later Pay Commissions to the employees from the date they have been paid to the State employees of the alleged writ petition. Paragraphs no. 14 and 15 of the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Writ Court is reproduced below: "14. Thus, the law is well settled by the aforesaid two judgments in case of Kapila Hingorani and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (Supra). The ground taken in the government orders cannot apply in the face of law settled by the Supreme Court. It is always open for the State Government, in case any of its company is not running in profits, to wind up the same, but it cannot keep the employees of its company, even if it is loss making, which it wants to run, to be paid salaries which are inhuman. It is the duty of the State that all its employees, whether working directly or through any corporation, enterprise or otherwise under its control, are paid salary which has a rational to todays' living standards. Even otherwise, it is apparent that till 4th Pay Commission, salaries to the petitioners were being paid at par with the State employees and thus, in view of aforesaid two judgments in case of Kapila Hingorani and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (Supra), the respondents cannot escape from their liability to pay the benefits of the later Pay Commissions to the petitioners from the date they have been paid to the State employees. 15. In view of aforesaid, all these writ petitions are allowed. The restrictive conditions imposed by the Government Orders dated 11.09.2009, 16.10.2009 and 03.01.2017 are declared to be illegal, arbitrary, not applicable and are set aside. 15. In view of aforesaid, all these writ petitions are allowed. The restrictive conditions imposed by the Government Orders dated 11.09.2009, 16.10.2009 and 03.01.2017 are declared to be illegal, arbitrary, not applicable and are set aside. Respondent authorities are directed to implement the recommendations of the 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commissions with regard to the employees of the U.P. Handicrafts Development and Marketing Corporation Ltd. from the date the same is implemented with regard to the State Government employees within three months." 11. Learned Advocate General for the appellants-State has submitted that the employees of Government Companies/Undertakings stand at different footing and they cannot be equated with the State Government employees. The identity of the government company remains distinct from the Government. The government company is not identified with the State but has been placed under a special system of control and conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 619 and 620 of the Companies Act. He has further submitted that being employees of the Government Company, 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, the petitioners cannot claim any legal right to ask for a direction to the State Government to meet the additional expenditure which may be incurred on account of revision of pay scales. The public sector undertakings will have to generate their own resources to meet the additional expenditure incurred on account of increase in wages and that the Government will not provide any funds for the same. He also pointed out that the learned Writ Court, while passing the order impugned, has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) as the facts of the said case are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. In the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. He also pointed out that the learned Writ Court, while passing the order impugned, has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) as the facts of the said case are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. In the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the situation where salaries were not paid to their workmen and other employees of Government Companies/Public Sector Undertakings for a long time resulting in death of several persons due to starvation or committed suicide owing to acute financial crisis and in that circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that we do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that the State is directly or vicariously liable to pay salaries/remunerations of the employees of the public sector undertakings or the Government companies in all situations. The State cannot escape its liability when a human rights problem of such magnitude involving the starvation deaths and/or suicide by the employees has taken place by reason of non-payment of salary to the employees of Public Sector Undertaking for such a long time. Similarly, the case of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal and others (Supra), relates to revision and fixation of pay scale of employees of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation, who were denied revision of pay scale with the other employees discharging same and similar duties and responsibilities at equivalent posts with the State Government, Boards and Corporations. 13. Learned Advocate General further pointed out that the Apex Court in the case of A.K. Bindal and another Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 has specifically held that identity of the Government Company remains distinct from the government. The Government Company is not identified with the Union but has been placed under a special system of control and conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 619 and 620 of the Companies Act. Merely because the entire share holding is owned by the Central Government will not make the incorporated company as Central Government. The Government Company is not identified with the Union but has been placed under a special system of control and conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 619 and 620 of the Companies Act. Merely because the entire share holding is owned by the Central Government will not make the incorporated company as Central Government. Since employees of Government Companies are not government servants they have absolutely no legal right to claim that government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale should be met by the government. 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, they 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. He has drawn our attention to the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 17 "But to hold that mere non-revision of pay scale would also amount to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 would be stretching it too far and cannot be countenanced", and prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and this appeal be allowed. 14. Per contra, Sri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, learned counsel for the employees has urged that as indisputably the Corporations/Government Companies owned and controlled by the State of U.P. are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, neither they nor the State of U.P. can escape their liability from enforcing the rights of the citizens of India under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India. The State may not be liable in relation to the day to day functioning of the Companies, but its liability would arise on its failure to perform the constitutional duties and functions by the public sector undertakings, as in relation thereto the State's constitutional obligations. 15. In the present bunch of appeals large number of employees were not granted 5th, 6th and 7th pay-commission of their revision of pay wages, which was made from time to time, whereas in identical circumstances the State of U.P. granted the benefit of 4th pay commission. 15. In the present bunch of appeals large number of employees were not granted 5th, 6th and 7th pay-commission of their revision of pay wages, which was made from time to time, whereas in identical circumstances the State of U.P. granted the benefit of 4th pay commission. Learned counsel for the employees has also drawn our attention to the impugned order and submitted that the learned Writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition and granted benefit of pay revision made by the State Government from time to time. The State cannot escape its liability in respect of payment of revision of pay on the ground that the Government Undertakings were running in losses and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 16. Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 42 has submitted that the Corporation is running in losses since the year 2006-07 and in the financial year 2017-18 the total losses were Rs. 24.16 Crores. The State Government is providing financial assistance to the Corporation in the shape of loan to meet out various liability of the Corporation and at present they implemented recommendation of 4th pay commission and are paying the wages to their employees along with Dearness Allowances at the rate of 287%. 17. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials on record. 18. According to the private respondents (writ petitioners), the current pay scale as per 4th pay commission for class IV and Class III employees is Rs. 750-940, Rs. 1025-1520, 1350-2200 and Rs. 1400-2300 respectively. Similarly as per 5th pay commission they are entitled to Rs. 4500-125-7000, Rs. 5000-150-8000 and Rs. 26103735 with effect from 01.01.1996 and Rs. 5200-20200 (Grade Pay Rs. 2800), Rs. 9300-34800 (Grade Pay Rs. 4200) and Rs. 4440-7440 (Grade Pay Rs. 1600) as per recommendation of 6th pay commission with effect from 01.01.2006 and as per 7th pay scale with effect from 01.01.2016 they are entitled to pay of Rs. 29200/-, Rs. 35400/-and Rs. 18000/-, respectively, which have already been granted to similarly situated employees in many State Government Undertakings/Corporations employees. 19. The respondent no. 42, the Corporation, immediately after coming into force 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission, recommended the State Government for implementation of 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission. 29200/-, Rs. 35400/-and Rs. 18000/-, respectively, which have already been granted to similarly situated employees in many State Government Undertakings/Corporations employees. 19. The respondent no. 42, the Corporation, immediately after coming into force 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission, recommended the State Government for implementation of 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission. The State Government, vide orders dated 11.09.2009, 16.10.2009 and 03.01.2017 had taken a decision that only those Corporation, which are earning profit and not running in losses are entitled to give benefits of 5th pay commission to its employees. The recommendation of the Corporation has been turned down for the reasons that due to continuous loss occurred to the Corporation it is not viable. The factum of losses in the Corporation is the main reason for not granting benefits of pay commission. 20. As per Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975 every statutory body established or constituted under any Uttar Pradesh Act, shall, in the discharge of its functions, be guided by such directions on questions of policies, as may be given to it by the State Government. 21. The question which arises for consideration is whether the employees of respondent no. 42, the Corporation, have any legal right to claim that though the Corporation in which they are working did not have the financial capacity to grant revision in pay scale, yet the Government should give financial support to meet the additional expenditure incurred in that regard. 22. In A.K. Bindal and another Vs. Union of India and others (Supra) the Apex Court has observed as under: "The legal position is that identity of the Government Company remains distinct from the government. The Government Company is not identified with the Union but has been placed under a special system of control and conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 619 and 620 of the Companies Act. Merely because the entire share holding is owned by the Central Government will not make the incorporated company as Central Government. It is also equally well settled that the employees of the Government Company are not civil servants and so are not entitled to the protection afforded by Article 311 of the Constitution (Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director AIR 1989 SC 1854 ). It is also equally well settled that the employees of the Government Company are not civil servants and so are not entitled to the protection afforded by Article 311 of the Constitution (Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director AIR 1989 SC 1854 ). Since employees of Government Companies are not government servants they have absolutely no legal right to claim that government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale should be met by the government. 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, the petitioners 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. It appears that prior to issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 12.4.1993 the Government had been providing the necessary funds for the management of Public Sector Enterprises which had been incurring losses. After the change in economic policy introduced in early nineties, Government took a decision that the Public Sector Undertakings will have to generate their own resources to meet the additional expenditure incurred on account of increase in wages and that the government will not provide any funds for the same. Such of the Public Sector Enterprises (Government Companies) which had become sick and had been referred to BIFR, were obviously running on huge losses and did not have their own resources to meet the financial liability which would have been incurred by revision of pay scales. By the Office Memorandum dated 19.7.1995 the Government merely reiterated its earlier stand and issued a caution that till a decision was taken to revive the undertakings no revision in pay scale should be allowed. We, therefore do not find any infirmity legal or constitutional in the two Office Memorandums which have been challenged in the writ petitions." 23. In Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. Vs. We, therefore do not find any infirmity legal or constitutional in the two Office Memorandums which have been challenged in the writ petitions." 23. In Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. Vs. Chairman & M.D., I.D.P.L. and others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 490 , the Apex Court in paragraph no.11 has held as under: "In our view, the economic capability of the employers also plays a crucial part in it, as also its capacity to expand business or earn more profits. The contention of Mr. Sanghi, if accepted that granting higher remuneration and emoluments and revision of pay to workers in the other governmental undertakings and, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for the grant of pay revision may, in our opinion, only lead to undesirable results. Enough material was placed on record before us by the respondents which clearly show that the first respondent had been suffering heavy losses for the last many years. In such a situation the petitioners, in our opinion, cannot legitimately claim that their pay-scales should necessarily be revised and enhanced even though the organization in which they are working are making continuous losses and are deeply in the red. As could be seen from the counter affidavit, the first respondent company which is engaged in the manufacture of medicines became sick industrial company for various reasons and was declared as such by the BIFP. and the revival package which was formulated and later approved by the BIFR for implementation could not also be given effect to and that the modifications recommended by the Government of India to the BIFR in the existing revival package was ordered to be examined by an operating agency and, in fact, IDBI was appointed as an operating agency under Section 17(3) of SICA. It is also not dispute that the production activities had to be stopped in the major two units of the company at Rishikesh and Hyderabad w.e.f. October, 1996 and the losses and liabilities are increasing every month and that the payment of three instalment of interim relief could not also be made due to the threat of industrial unrest and the wage revision in respect of other employees is also due w.e.f. 1999 which has also not been sanctioned by the Government of India." 24. In Kapila Hingorani Vs. In Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar (Supra), about 250 employees died due to starvation or committed suicide owing to acute financial crisis resulting from non-payment of remunerations to them for a long time, therefore, the Apex Court, in the interest of justice, issued interim directions and directed the State of Bihar to deposit the amount for disbursement of the salaries of the employees of the Corporation. The Apex Court has laid down, in paragraph no. 74, as under: "We, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that the State is directly or vicariously liable to pay salaries/remunerations of the employees of the public sector undertakings or the Government companies in all situations. We, as explained hereinbefore, only say that the State cannot escape its liability when a human rights problem of such magnitude involving the starvation deaths and/or suicide by the employees has taken place by reason of non-payment of salary to the employees of Public Sector Undertaking for such a long time. We are not issuing any direction as against the State of Jharkhand as no step had admittedly been taken by the Central Government in terms of Section 65of the Bihar Reorganisation Act and furthermore as only four public sector undertakings have been transferred to the State of Jharkhand in respect whereof the petitioner does not make any grievance." 25. In the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited Vs. Arvind Kumar Dixit and another, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 535 , the Tribunal extended actual financial benefits to the private respondents by holding that they cannot be denied the benefit of “wage revision” by notional fixation and recomputation of their retiral dues. The writ petition challenging the order were disposed of by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. In the Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court their stand was that the Mineral Exploration Corporation incurred losses since 1992 onwards till 2009 and due to financial condition of the Corporation they are not entitled to notional wage revision as directed by the Tribunal. The Apex Court has held that the employees who were superannuated or voluntarily retired prior to 01.04.2003 from the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited are not entitled to notional wage revision as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the High Court. The Apex Court has held that the employees who were superannuated or voluntarily retired prior to 01.04.2003 from the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited are not entitled to notional wage revision as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the High Court. It is also held that fixing of the cut-off date for granting retirement benefits such as gratuity or pension under the different schemes incorporated in the subordinate legislation, thereby, creating two distinct and separate classes of employees is well within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution. Looking to the financial condition of the employees the order passed by the High Court as well as Tribunal were set aside by the Apex Court. 26. In the case of All India Imam Organization and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 584 , both the Union of India and various State Wakf Boards of different States which have put in appearance in response to the notice issued by the Apex Court have seriously disputed the manner of their appointment, right to receive any payment and absence of any relationship of master and servant. The Apex Court in paragraph no. 6 has observed that financial difficulties of the institution cannot be above fundamental right of a citizen. If the boards have been entrusted with the responsibility of supervision and administering the Wakf then it is their duty to harness resources to pay those persons who perform the most important duty namely of leading community prayer in a mosque the very purpose or which it is created. 27. In Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) the Apex Court has held that the Government companies/public sector undertakings being 'State' would be constitutionally liable to respect life and liberty of all persons in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They, therefore, must do so in cases of their own employees. The Government of the State of Bihar for all intent and purport is the sole shareholder. They, therefore, must do so in cases of their own employees. The Government of the State of Bihar for all intent and purport is the sole shareholder. Although in law, its liability towards the debtors of the Company may be confined to the shares held by it but having regard to the deep and pervasive control it exercises over the Government companies; in the matter of enforcement of human rights and/ or rights of the citizen of life and liberty, the State has also an additional duty to see that the rights of employees of such corporations are not infringed. The right to exercise deep and pervasive control would in its turn make the Government of Bihar liable to see that the life and liberty clause in respect of the employees is fully safeguarded. The Government of the State of Bihar, thus, had a constitutional obligation to protect life and liberty of the employees of the Government owned companies/corporations who are the citizens of India. It had an additional liability having regard to its right of extensive supervision over the affairs of the company. In relation to statutory authority, the State had also the requisite power to issue necessary directions which were binding upon them, as for example, Section 79 (c) of Electricity (Supply) Act. The State having regard to its right of supervision and/or deep and pervasive control, cannot be permitted to say that it did not know the actual state of affairs of the State Government undertakings and/or it was kept in dark that the salaries of their employees had not been paid for years leading to starvation death and/or commission of suicide by a large number of employees. Concept of accountability arises out of the power conferred on an authority. The State may not be liable in relation to the day to day functioning of the Companies, but its liability would arise on its failure to perform the constitutional duties and functions by the public sector undertakings, as in relation thereto the State's constitutional obligations. The State acts in a fiduciary capacity. The failure on the part of the State in a case of this nature must also be viewed from the angle that the statutory authorities have failed and/or neglected to enforce the social welfare legislations enacted in this behalf e.g. Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act etc. The State acts in a fiduciary capacity. The failure on the part of the State in a case of this nature must also be viewed from the angle that the statutory authorities have failed and/or neglected to enforce the social welfare legislations enacted in this behalf e.g. Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act etc. Such welfare activities as adumbrated in Part IV of the Constitution of India indisputably would cast a duty upon the State being a welfare State and its statutory authorities to do all things which they are statutorily obligated to perform. 28. In the case of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal and others (Supra), the writ petitioners were working on the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE) and Assistant Engineer (AE) with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. The Corporation was carved out of the Irrigation Wing of the Public Works Department and since its inception in the year 1970, a number of officers have been appointed to different posts by way of deputation. There were about 27 SDOs on deputation from the Irrigation Department working in Corporation whose nature of duties and responsibilities were similar and identical to the nature and duties of the SDOs working in the equivalent post of Corporation. All those employees who came on deputation on whatever post, were granted pay scales as revised by the Haryana Government from time to time for the Engineers in the Government Departments, like PWD (B & R), Public Health and Irrigation Department. The proposal of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for revision of pay scales of the Corporation Engineers was sent to the Finance Department and in the said proposal, it was brought to the notice of the Standing Committee that the revised pay scales had already been granted to the Engineers of the Haryana Urban Development Authority and that of the Haryana State Electricity Board. Standing Committee in its meeting approved the pay scales in a selective manner. The revision in the pay scales of the Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers, Circle Head Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved, whereas the revision of pay scales of the AEs/SDOs/SDEs was postponed and was not taken up by the Standing Committee and, therefore, they filed writ petition for grant of revised pay scale. The revision in the pay scales of the Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers, Circle Head Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved, whereas the revision of pay scales of the AEs/SDOs/SDEs was postponed and was not taken up by the Standing Committee and, therefore, they filed writ petition for grant of revised pay scale. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioners therein will be entitled to the revised pay scale as has been granted to the persons working in the Corporation by way of deputation or in the Public Works Department of the Government. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench and the Division Bench upheld the order of learned Writ Court and dismissed the appeal of the Corporation. The Apex Court negatived the plea of Corporation that it is running under losses and it cannot meet the financial burden on account of revision of scales of pay and has observed that if the Government feels that the Corporation is running into losses, measures of economy, avoidance of frequent writing off of dues, reduction of posts or repatriating deputationists may provide the possible solution to the problem. However, so long as the posts do exist and are manned, there appears to be no justification for granting the respondents a scale of pay lower than that sanctioned for those employees who are brought on deputation. The pay scales of the employees of the Corporation were treated and equated at par with those in Government. The Corporation cannot put forth financial loss as a ground only with regard to a limited category of employees. It cannot be said that the Corporation is financially sound insofar granting of revised pay scales to other employees, but finds financial constraints only when it comes to dealing with the respondents, who are similarly placed in the same category and dismissed all the appeals. 29. In the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Textiles Corpn. Ltd. and others Vs. N.T.C. (WBAB & O) Ltd. Employees Union and others, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 31 , the issue involved is regarding claim of the staff/sub staff engaged by the various textile mills under the NTC for 'equal pay for equal work'. 29. In the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Textiles Corpn. Ltd. and others Vs. N.T.C. (WBAB & O) Ltd. Employees Union and others, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 31 , the issue involved is regarding claim of the staff/sub staff engaged by the various textile mills under the NTC for 'equal pay for equal work'. The staff working in the mills is claiming pay equal to or in parity with the pay scales prevailing for the staff working in the corporate offices of the mills. The Apex Court has held that pendency of the rehabilitation schemes before the BIFR is not a sufficient ground for us to deny relief to the staff/sub staff working in the Mills. As per the provisions of Section 5 (2) (c) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisaion) Act, 1974, the wages, salaries and other dues of the employees of the sick textile undertakings after the takeover of their managements by the Central Government are the responsibility of the Central Government. The Central Government has failed to discharge its responsibility for all these years by raising such specious pleas. The Central Government has to discharge its responsibility de hors the BIFR schemes. 30. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the employees in the case of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal and others (Supra) are distinguishable and will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 31. Much was argued on behalf of the State that their financial position was not such that they can meet the obligations of paying the revision of 5th, 6th and 7th pay scales. It was also urged that the number of employees is so large that it would entail heavy expenditure which the State of U.P. would not be able to bear. We do not find any correlation between the two. If the Corporation is not working as per expectations of State Government and is running in losses and it has no business then the State may take a policy decision for its winding up or closer in accordance with law. As long as they are in existence and under the control of Uttar Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975, the State cannot escape from its liability nor can be permitted to be circumvented on the ground of lack of economic capacity or financial incapacity. 32. As long as they are in existence and under the control of Uttar Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975, the State cannot escape from its liability nor can be permitted to be circumvented on the ground of lack of economic capacity or financial incapacity. 32. In view of the forgoing discussions so also the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal and others (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that the learned Writ Court was fully justified in directing the appellants to implement the recommendations of 5th, 6th and 7th pay commissions to the employees of respondent no. 42, the Corporation. As the period of three months is already expired, therefore, we modify the aforesaid and direct the appellant-authority to implement 5th, 6th and 7th pay commissions in phased manner, i.e, the recommendations of 5th pay commission shall be implemented within a period of six months, thereafter, recommendations of 6th pay commission shall be implemented within another period of six months and recommendations of 7th pay commission shall be implemented within next six months, meaning thereby the whole process of implementation of recommendations of 5th, 6th and 7th pay commissions shall be completed within a period of 18 (eighteen) months from the date of service of certified copy of this order. 32. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal no. 94 of 2019 and connected appeals are dismissed to the extent as indicated here-in-above without there being any order as to costs.