JUDGMENT : 1. In all these three Writ petitions, being SWP Nos. 1198/2009; 204/2011; and 773/2012, the petitioners have assailed the validity of Order No. 193/JKSRTC/MD of 2008 dated 21st of October, 2008, issued by the Managing Director, JKSRTC, whereby the concerned unit Officers have been directed to notify/ inform the employees mentioned in Annexure to the said order to convey their acceptance of GHS, in writing within 10 days with a further intimation that in the event of their failure, they shall be dealt with under rules. That being so, similar questions of facts and the law are involved herein all these three Writ petitions, as such, same stand clubbed for their decision together. Accordingly, I propose to decide these petitions by virtue of this common judgment. 2. The material facts leading to the filing of these petitions, as come to limelight from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that in the year 2007, the then Government of Jammu and Kashmir, taking note of the accumulated losses incurred by various Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), including the respondent-JKSRTC, their perpetual failure to clear statutory liabilities viz. monthly salary of workers, provident fund and gratuity claims of retired employees and total dependence on Government Budgetary support, severely affecting social development of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir, notified the Golden Handshake/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide Government Order No. 218-F of 2007 dated 16th of July, 2007. This scheme had its genesis from the report of the high-level Committee constituted for the purpose by the Government under the chairmanship of the Financial Commissioner (Home). Consequently, the Golden Handshake/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme is stated to have been adopted by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation in their meeting held on 24th of September, 2008 and circulated to all employees of the Corporation through their respective Unit Officers/ DODs for communication of their option. Since, as stated, some of the employees did not convey their option for the aforesaid Golden Handshake/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the Corporation issued order No. 193/JKSRTC/MD of 2008 dated 21st of October, 2008, thereby directing the Unit Officers to notify/ inform the employees, mentioned in the order itself, to convey their acceptance of the scheme in writing within 10 days, failing which they were supposed to be dealt with under rules. It is this order of the Corporation that has been assailed by the petitioners in all these three petitions. 3. Mr M. A. Qayoom, the learned counsel, representing the petitioners, submitted that the Golden Handshake Scheme/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme laid down certain conditions concerning the employees to be considered eligible for the said scheme from whom the consent was to be invited. It is submitted that, accordingly, the process involved identification of such employees whose consent was to be invited by issuing notices, however, the respondent Corporation, on pick and choose basis, issued notices even to those employees who were not eligible for Scheme in question. It is contended that the petitioners were not invited to give their consent either for voluntary retirement or Golden Handshake, as was provided in the Scheme itself, but they were unilaterally thrown out of service and that the consent, if any, given by any of the petitioners, as claimed by the respondents, has been obtained forcibly. Mr Qayoom further submitted that the introduction of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme/ Golden Handshake Scheme was aimed at winding up the Corporation and not throwing out the employees of the Corporation. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to return the ex-gratia amount received by them from the respondents, provided the petitioners are taken back in service and given all service benefits. 4. Objections stand filed on behalf of the respondents, resisting and controverting the averments made by the petitioners in their petitions. It is submitted that having been brought under the Golden Handshake/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme, as notified by the respondents, the petitioners in acceptance thereof received and acknowledged the payment of entire amount of ex-gratia and retiral benefits, as had been awarded in their favour by the Corporation under the Scheme. It is stated that in the light of the said facts, neither it is permissible for the petitioners to raise any claim against the order dated 12th of October, 2010 or seek a direction for their reinstatement in service. It is pleaded that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, on an overall assessment of the financial viability and feasibility of all the PSUs numerous committees were constituted by the Government from time to time, so as to examine the reasons of sickness. It is pleaded that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, on an overall assessment of the financial viability and feasibility of all the PSUs numerous committees were constituted by the Government from time to time, so as to examine the reasons of sickness. As a sequel thereto, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in terms of Government order No. 1355-GAD of 2006 dated 7th of November, 2006, constituted a committee of high-ranking officers in the Government with the then Financial Commissioner (Home) as its Chairman to examine various issues involved in Golden Handshake/ Voluntary retirement scheme for the employees of Public Sector Undertaking. The said committee, as stated, came up with the report thereby proposing approval of voluntary retirement/ Golden Handshake Scheme. Consequently, the respondents claim that the petitioners have been strictly dealt with by the respondent Corporation under the aforesaid scheme of the Golden Handshake/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme as sanctioned by the Government and approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation. It is also submitted that a huge number of employees of the respondent Corporation, numbering more than 550 born both on technical and non-technical establishment, have already accepted the Golden Handshake/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme including the petitioners. The respondents further claim that they issued series of notices to the petitioners thereby asking them to convey their acceptance which included the final notice dated 21st of October, 2008, wherein it was specifically provided for conveying acceptance or otherwise of Golden Handshake/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme in writing within a period of ten days, failing which it shall be presumed that the same is accepted by them. It is submitted that the Writ petitioners/ respondents, despite being served with the order dated 21st of October, 2008, did not convey their acceptance of the Golden Handshake/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme and, accordingly, were ordered to be retired from service leading to cessation of jural relationship of employer and employee between the respondent Corporation and the respondents. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 6. Perusal of the pleadings on record makes it axiomatic that on the basis of the report of the Committee constituted by the Government regarding huge accumulated losses incurred by various Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), including the respondent Corporation, sanction was accorded to the implementation of the Golden Handshake Scheme/ Voluntary Retirement Scheme in terms of Government order No. 218-F of 2007 dated 16th of July, 2007. In terms of the said Government order, the Golden Handshake Scheme had to be given to the employees of closed units or units totally unviable after identification of surplus personnel, whileas the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was kept open to all the employees of PSUs subject to approval of competent authority. In other words, before offering Golden Handshake Scheme to its employees, the respondent Corporation had to identify the surplus staff with pre-determined timeframe and offer them Golden Handshake Scheme thereby indicating the target date for availing the same failing which they could be liable to be disengaged after following the procedure prescribed by law. On the other hand, those eligible employees who desired to seek voluntary retirement had to apply to the competent authority through his/ her Head of the wing in the prescribed format and the decision of the competent authority regarding the acceptance/ rejection of Voluntary Retirement application had to be communicated to the employee concerned within 30 days of submission of application. In this context, the respondents have not produced any record which would show that the aforesaid procedure prescribed in the scheme itself was followed by them. It is not forthcoming from any document placed on record by the respondents that the respondents, before offering any Golden Handshake Scheme, have, in fact, identified the closed units or totally unviable units, as was mandated by the Government order dated 16th of July, 2007, meaning thereby that the entire process has been initiated by the respondents without determining the eligibility as provided in Clause 3 of the Government order supra and without following the procedure prescribed in Clause 5 of the said Government order. 7. 7. It needs, must, be said here that this Court, in terms of order dated 31st of May, 2016, while hearing the counsel for the parties and with a view to ascertain as to whether the Corporation had identified the closed units or totally unviable units, to which the Golden Handshake Scheme was extended, and, further, whether the terms and conditions in respect of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were followed and complied with, had clearly directed as under: “… Be that as it may, Mr Haqani, has to show by the records that respondent-corporation identified the closed units and those units which were found to be totally unviable and thereafter has to further identify the employees who are working in such type of units from amongst petitioners. Mr Haqani has to show further from the record that VRS has been followed in the manner provided and prescribed by the Government order itself. Record in this behalf be produced on next date. Besides production of record, the General Manager, Administration to file affidavit in the light of observations made in this order.” In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondents, till date, have not produced any such record. The Incharge General Manager (Adm.), JKSRTC, Srinagar, however, filed his Affidavit on 24th of October, 2016, wherein it has been stated that since most of the official records of the Corporation kept at its Administrative Office at M. A. Road, Srinagar were destroyed/ damaged during the devastating floods of September, 2014, therefore, no records as to whether any exercise to identify closed units or totally unviable units, to which the Golden Handshake Scheme had been applied by the Corporation, are available. In such circumstances and in absence of any record controverting the claim of the petitioners, this Court is left with no other option but to accept the contentions/ averments raised by the petitioners qua violation of the procedure prescribed in the scheme itself. 8. In such circumstances and in absence of any record controverting the claim of the petitioners, this Court is left with no other option but to accept the contentions/ averments raised by the petitioners qua violation of the procedure prescribed in the scheme itself. 8. Insofar as the objection raised by the respondents qua applicability of principle of estoppel to the case of the present petitioners after having accepted the ex-gratia amount, which has been taken as consent of acceptance of the scheme on the part of the petitioners by the respondents, it is well settled legal position that any action which is without jurisdiction or nullity or in violation of the procedure in vogue cannot be brought into effect for invoking the principle of estoppel. Once the action of the respondents is alleged to be in violation of the procedure prescribed and same has remained unrebutted with the support of record, therefore, the principle of estoppel cannot be applied to the case of the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners have clearly stated in their petitions that the so-called consents from them were obtained under coercion and duress as well as against the mandate of the scheme itself. This contention of the petitioners has also not been proven wrong with the support of the record, as such, has to be treated as correct. 9. The other important aspect that cannot be lost sight of is that it is an admitted fact that a number of employees of the respondent Corporation, similarly situated with the petitioners herein, have already been taken back in service by the respondents pursuant to orders passed by this Court from time to time. In this behalf, the petitioners cannot be denied the same treatment, thereby subjecting them to hostile discrimination. The action of the respondents, being the functionaries of the Government, has to be transparent. They cannot discriminate between similarly circumstanced persons. Ours is a welfare country which aims at the goal where everyone is/has to be, as far as possible, looked after. Justice is not only law and its administration, but is, in most cases, above law and is done to save the individual from whatever he/ she seeks protection. They cannot discriminate between similarly circumstanced persons. Ours is a welfare country which aims at the goal where everyone is/has to be, as far as possible, looked after. Justice is not only law and its administration, but is, in most cases, above law and is done to save the individual from whatever he/ she seeks protection. The case of the petitioners herein had to be considered on the same parameters and analogy as was evolved in the cases of the similarly situated persons, who were taken back in service pursuant to orders of this Court. The respondents have treated the case of the present petitioners as a ‘sui generis’ case and have invidiously discriminated them. 10. The judgment of law supplied by Mr Haqani, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent Corporation, rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case titled ‘Bank of India & Ors. v. O. P. Swarnakar & Ors.; (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 721’, being distinguishable on facts, as such, is not applicable to the facts and the circumstances of the case on hand. This is so because in the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was clearly established that the employees concerned had accepted part of the benefit under the Scheme and, as such, they could not approbate and reprobate nor could they resile from their earlier stand. However, in the present case, the respondents have not produced any record which would show that the petitioners herein have, in fact, accepted any benefit pursuant to the Scheme as per their own sweet will which is vehemently denied by the petitioners in their petitions. 11. For the foregoing reasons, all these petitions are allowed and, by a ‘Writ of Certiorari’, the impugned order No. 193/JKSRTC/MD of 2008 dated 21st of October, 2008, is quashed to the extent of the petitioners in all these three petitions. Consequently, the respondents, by a ‘Writ of Mandamus’, are directed to forthwith process the case of the petitioners in these petitions for release of service benefits; viz. reinstatement in service or post retiral service benefits, whichever applicable; as per the status they were having in the respondent Corporation prior to passing of the impugned order dated 21st of October, 2008. Consequently, the respondents, by a ‘Writ of Mandamus’, are directed to forthwith process the case of the petitioners in these petitions for release of service benefits; viz. reinstatement in service or post retiral service benefits, whichever applicable; as per the status they were having in the respondent Corporation prior to passing of the impugned order dated 21st of October, 2008. It is, however, made clear here that the petitioners shall be entitled to all the service emoluments/ benefits under rules notionally as if they have continued in service without any interruption and monetarily from the date they are taken back in service by the respondents/ their actual date(s) of retirement. 12. Before parting with these files, it needs to be mentioned here that during the course of hearing this matter and upon perusal of the pleadings on record, it came to limelight that a number of miscellaneous applications have been filed in these petitions for seeking a direction upon the respondents to take back the amount received by the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order. The respondents shall, in this regard, be at liberty to either take back the said amount from the petitioners after due calculation and identification or adjust the same towards the amount(s) due to the petitioners on their reinstatement in service, as aforesaid. Having observed as such, the said applications shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. 13. All these Writ petitions shall stand disposed of as above, along with the connected CMs. 14. Registry to place a copy of this judgment on each connected file.