JUDGMENT : 1. By medium of the present Petition, the Petitioners are seeking a direction upon the Respondents to grant them pensionary and other retiral benefits, being the legal heirs of ex-employees of the Government Joinery Mills Pampore (a Unit of J&K Industries Limited, Srinagar), as has been granted in favour of the Petitioners in Writ Petitions bearing SWP No. 275/2006 titled ‘Ab. Gani Hajam & Ors. v. State of J&K’; SWP No. 1492/2006 titled as ‘Santosh Kumari v. State & Ors.’; and SWP No. 1000/2005 titled ‘Syed Ahmad Bahaki & Ors. v. State & Ors.’ A direction is also sought upon the Respondent No.1 to calculate the pensionary and other retiral benefits to which the deceased employees are entitled through their legal heirs/dependents. The Petitioner No.1 claims to be the son and legal heir of one Late Ab. Gaffar Khar (ex-Gardener), whereas the Petitioner No.2 claims to be the son and legal heir of Gh. Hassan Shah (ex-Santry), and after their death during the present proceedings, their legal heirs were brought on record. 2. The Petitioners contend that the erstwhile State of J&K, under its executive powers to carry the business and trade under Article 298 of the Constitution of India, opened many industrial Units under the administrative control of Department of Industries & Commerce, which included Spinning Mill Amda Kadal, Government Woolen Mills Bemina, Rajbagh Silk Factory, Government Joinery Mills Kashmir, etc. All these Units were managed by the Industries & Commerce Department till 1963, when by virtue of Order dated 10th of August, 1963, a Board of Directors for better administration was constituted and, subsequently, on 3rd of October, 1963, the J&K Industries Limited was incorporated as a Company and on 8th of October, 1963 the said Units were entrusted to the JKI Limited in which the Government Joinery Mills figured at S. No.6. Till 3rd of October, 1963, when the aforesaid Government Units were entrusted to the Company, the said Units were enjoying all the amenities and benefits as were available to the Government employees under Civil Service Regulations and other rules. Even after the JKI took over the Units, the employees continued to draw the said benefits in the shape of pension, leave salary and DA etc. 3. Even after the JKI took over the Units, the employees continued to draw the said benefits in the shape of pension, leave salary and DA etc. 3. The Petitioners allege that after 1979, pursuant to the report of the Rajan Wage Committee, the said benefits were withdrawn and the employees who were basically the Government employees were treated as the employees of the Company against which a Writ Petition bearing SWP No. 236/1982 titled ‘Jawahar Lal Sazawal & Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors.’ was filed before this Court, wherein a direction was sought for treating the Petitioners therein as Government employees with all rights, benefits and other privileges. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, against which SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was allowed and the Petitioners therein were granted the relief as prayed in the Writ Petition. Pursuant to the said judgment, all the employees who had been appointed prior to 3rd of October, 1963, i.e., the date of entrustment of the aforesaid Units to the JKI, were entitled to pensionary and other benefits, however, the Government of J&K extended the relief only to the Petitioners vide Government Order No. 219-Ind of 2002 dated 8th of August, 2002. 4. Thereafter, the similarly situated employees filed Writ Petition bearing SWP No. 275/2006 titled as ‘Ab. Gani Hajam & Ors. v. State of J&K’ and one Writ Petition was also filed by one Santosh Kumari on behalf of her deceased husband bearing SWP No. 1492/2006. Both the Writ Petitions were allowed vide Judgments dated 28th of January, 2008 and 29th of November, 2007. In both the said Judgments, this Court was of the view that the Petitioners as well as those employees who had been given the benefit of Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are equally situated, as such, they too were entitled for pensionary and other retiral benefits. In compliance of the said Judgments, the Government of J&K, in terms of Government Order No. 03-Ind of 2009 dated 1st of January, 2009, passed a detailed order, wherein the Petitioners of the aforesaid Writ Petitions were granted the pensionary benefits availed by other co-employees. 5. In compliance of the said Judgments, the Government of J&K, in terms of Government Order No. 03-Ind of 2009 dated 1st of January, 2009, passed a detailed order, wherein the Petitioners of the aforesaid Writ Petitions were granted the pensionary benefits availed by other co-employees. 5. In this backdrop, the present Petitioners pleaded and represented before the Respondents that since the Apex Court of the country as well as this High Court has held that the employees of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appointed prior to 3rd of October, 1963 were to be treated at par with those who have been given the benefit of Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and, therefore, the Petitioners too deserve to be granted the said pensionary benefits to which their deceased fathers were entitled, but the Respondents did not pay any heed to the requests so made, thereby constraining the Petitioners to file the present Writ Petition. 6. Objections stand filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1 which were, on request, treated as Objections on behalf of Respondent No.2 as well. It has been stated that there are two sets of employees in the Respondent-Corporation; one set of employees are those who were employed by the Government prior to formation of the Respondent-Corporation and the second set of employees have been employed by the Corporation itself after its formation. It is further stated that two Writ Petitions were filed by each set of employees before this Court, wherein the employees sought to be treated at par with the employes of the State Government for their retiral and pensionary benefits. Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court and only the Petitioners of one Writ Petition, who were appointed by the Government prior to the formation of the Corporation, filed SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was allowed and, as such, the Petitioners of that particular Writ Petition had to be treated at par with the State Government employees. Resultantly, the Government passed the Order implementing the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Petitioners who had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been granted the benefits. 7. The benefits could not be granted to all the ex-employees of the Corporation, as they were not the Appellants before the Apex Court. Resultantly, the Government passed the Order implementing the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Petitioners who had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been granted the benefits. 7. The benefits could not be granted to all the ex-employees of the Corporation, as they were not the Appellants before the Apex Court. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27th of February, 2002 was extended only to the Appellants in that case titled ‘Jawahar Lal Sazawal & Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors.’. Since, the fathers of the Petitioners were not parties in the said case, therefore, the said benefits could not be granted to them. It is also stated that since, the Petitioners have not given reference to any particular Writ Petition whereby the Respondents have been directed by the Court to grant the benefit of that Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to ex-employees, the Respondents are not in a position to reply the said averment contained in the para under reply. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while reiterating the pleadings made in the Writ Petition with the support of the documents on record, argued that since the Apex Court of the country as well as this High Court has held that the employees of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appointed prior to 3rd of October, 1963 were to be treated at par with those who have been given the benefit of Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, as such, the Petitioners too deserve to be granted the said pensionary benefits to which their deceased fathers were entitled. He further argued that the Respondents cannot make discrimination between two similarly situated employees by extending the pensionary/retiral benefits to one class of employees and denying the same to the other, without there being any justification therefor. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, ex adverso, argued that the pensionary/retiral benefits could not be granted to all the ex-employees of the Corporation, as they were not the Appellants before the Hon’ble Apex Court and that the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27th of February, 2002 was extended only to the Appellants in that case titled ‘Jawahar Lal Sazawal v. State of J&K and Ors.’. He has further argued that since the Petitioners were also not parties in the said case, therefore, the said benefits could not be granted to them. 10. He has further argued that since the Petitioners were also not parties in the said case, therefore, the said benefits could not be granted to them. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 11. The matter, as is being urged on behalf of the Petitioners in the present Petition, has already been agitated before this Court by similarly situated ex-employees of the Respondent-Company, which were ordered to be granted pensionary benefits by the learned Single Judge of this Court, against which an intra Court appeal came to be filed before this Court and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge were not found favour with the learned Division Bench and the Judgment passed by the learned Writ Court was set aside. Aggrieved of the Judgment passed by the learned Division Bench, the Petitioners/Appellants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court in case titled ‘Jawahar Lal Sazawal & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.’, reported as ‘ (2002) 3 SCC 219 ’, was pleased to set aside the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court. While affirming the law laid down by the Apex Court in an earlier Judgment titled ‘Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India’, reported as ‘AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1889’, wherein it had been held that “once appointed to his post or office the government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government”, it was held that the irresistible conclusion is that the Appellants were and continue to be the servants of the State Government and as permanent residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir are entitled under Section 10 of the State Constitution to be treated on par with other Government servants in keeping with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that by the impugned orders, the State Government has sought to deny the Appellants such equality and that the impugned orders cannot, therefore, be constitutionally sustained and must consequently be quashed. 12. It was also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that by the impugned orders, the State Government has sought to deny the Appellants such equality and that the impugned orders cannot, therefore, be constitutionally sustained and must consequently be quashed. 12. The Apex Court, while tracing the genesis of the case, observed that the Appellants were Government servants and later their services were transferred to the Industrial Units set up under the administration of a Board of Directors and, lastly, to the Respondent- Jammu & Kashmir Industries Limited, incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1977 to run, manage and administer the State Industrial Undertakings as may be notified by the Governor in a manner as would ensure their economic working. Thereafter, the Company framed its own service rules which were entitled as ‘the Jammu & Kashmir Industries Service Regulations’, however, the revision of grades and dearness allowance benefits were continued to be paid to the employees as were being paid to other Government servants of the State in view of 1973 Chatterjee Wage Committee Report. Again, in the year 1979, a Committee known as Rajan Committee was set up by the State government to examine the wage structure of employees of Public Sector Corporations, which was accepted by the Cabinet on 22nd of April, 1980. After giving the aforesaid factual background of the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court has proceeded on erroneous assumption that the Government Industrial Undertakings stood abolished with the formation of the Company and observed that there was nothing in the instructions which would remotely be construed as an order abolishing the posts held by the Appellants. 13. After the Judgment supra of the Apex Court, this Court in the Petitions filed by similarly situated employees, who were not Petitioners in the earlier litigation, considered their matters in SWP No. 1492/2006 titled ‘Santosh Kumari v. State & Ors.’, decided on 2nd of November, 2017 by the Jammu wing of this Court and SWP No. 275/2006 titled ‘Ab. 13. After the Judgment supra of the Apex Court, this Court in the Petitions filed by similarly situated employees, who were not Petitioners in the earlier litigation, considered their matters in SWP No. 1492/2006 titled ‘Santosh Kumari v. State & Ors.’, decided on 2nd of November, 2017 by the Jammu wing of this Court and SWP No. 275/2006 titled ‘Ab. Gani Hajam & Ors v. State of J&K’, decided on 28th of January, 2018 by the Srinagar wing of this Court, wherein it was held that similarly circumstanced ex-employees of the Respondent-Company, who had been initially recruited and appointed as Government employees and whose services were later transferred to the Respondent-Company, are entitled to the pensionary benefits/retiral emoluments, like the Petitioners/Appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. In Santosh Kumari’s case supra, this Court directed as under: “A perusal of Annexure-A further shows that the appellants in the aforesaid case were thereafter given the benefit and pension etc. The said order was passed by the respondent State on 8th of August, 2002, after the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case and about 169 employees of the different industrial units run by the Industries and Commerce Department of the State who were appointed before 3rd of October, 1963, as indicated above, were given the said benefit. Therefore, the deceased in the present case who was also similarly situated cannot be denied this benefit. At the hearing, Mr P. C. Sharma, learned AAG, appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the benefit has been denied to the deceased as he was not an appellant before the Apex Court. I am of the opinion that the said plea raised by Mr Sharma, AAG, cannot be accepted. Once the Apex Court had observed that the appellants before it are entitled under Section 10 of the State Constitution to be treated at par with other Government servants in keeping with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, then the aforesaid plea raised by the counsel for the respondents, as indicated above, cannot be accepted when the deceased husband of the petitioner was similarly situated to that of appellants before the Apex Court. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the pension and retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner which were due to her husband. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the pension and retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner which were due to her husband. Let this be done within a period of three months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to respondent-State by the petitioner or her counsel. Disposed of accordingly.” 15. Thereafter, while following the aforesaid Judgment passed in Santosh Kumari’s case supra, this Court in Ab. Gani Hajam’s case supra, observed as under: “I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Without necessary hair splitting, I feel the case of petitioners in so far as their claim of parity with petitioners of Sazwal’s case whose title to retiral benefits in terms thereof has been acknowledged by Hon’ble Supreme Court and later acknowledged by the State Government by passing requisite administrative orders in follow up, in respect of the petitioners of that petition, is well founded for the simple reason that principles of law and procedure as declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be limited to a particular case only particularly when other facts/factors in which the same were laid down are similar to those under consideration of Court. This is so for the reason that state cannot discriminate between similarly situated persons at par with each other in all respects of the matter, which as a matter of fact is the central theme of Jammu Bench judgment mentioned above, which, as stated at bar, has not been challenged by respondents in appeal. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by providing that respondent-corporation shall consider grant of retiral/pensionary benefits to petitioners at par with petitioners of Sazawal’s case above quoted provided they are similarly placed/situated with them in all respects and do not otherwise suffer any genuine disability for grant of same. The process for such consideration be accorded within four months from now. Disposed of.” 16. Both the aforesaid Judgments passed by this Court were not assailed in appeal by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, rather, in compliance of the same, vide Government Order No. 03-IND of 2009 dated 1st of January, 2009, sanction was accorded to the grant of pensionary and other post-retirement benefits under Rules to 23 employees or their legal heirs viz. the Petitioners in Ab. the Petitioners in Ab. Gani Hajam’s case supra and Santosh Kumari’s case supra, who were stated to have been appointed prior to 3rd of October, 1963 in the Government Industrial Units under the administrative control of the Industries & Commerce Department of J&K Government and transferred to the Respondent-J&K Industries Limited at the time of its establishment in 1963. 17. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jawahar Lal Sazawal’s case supra, as followed by this Court in Santosh Kumari’s case supra and Ab. Gani Hajam’s case supra, and reverting to the factual background of the case of the present Petitioners, it is noticed that Abdul Gaffar Khan-father of Petitioner No.1 and Gh. Hassan Shah-father of Petitioner No.2 had been appointed as Gardener and Santry on 13th of February, 1955 and 16th of November, 1954 respectively, as gets revealed from the relevant excerpts of the service book of both the aforesaid ex-employees placed on record by the Petitioners along with the Writ Petition viz. much prior to 3rd of October, 1963. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the Respondents that the present Petitioners are not similarly circumstanced with the Petitioners/Appellants, who were before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and were found entitled to all the pensionary benefits, is belied in view of the subsequent Judgments passed by this Court in similarly situated employees, while following the mandate of Jawahar Lal Sazawal’s case supra, coupled with fact of the Respondents having acted upon those Judgments without assailing the same. That being so, the irresistible conclusion is that the fathers of the Petitioners, ex-employees of the Corporation, are/were to be treated as servants of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and, thus, entitled to be treated on par with other Government servants in keeping with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 18. In the light of the aforesaid observations and the law discussed hereinabove, as enunciated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and followed by this Court in earlier decisions, the present Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to consider release of pensionary/retiral benefits in favour of the Petitioners which were due to their fathers, being ex-employees (Gardener and Santry respectively) of the Respondent Corporation. Let this exercise be completed by the Respondents within a period of two months from the date a copy of this Judgment is made available to them. Let this exercise be completed by the Respondents within a period of two months from the date a copy of this Judgment is made available to them. 19. Writ Petition is, thus, disposed of on the above terms, along with the connected CM(s). No order as to costs.