JUDGMENT : 1. All the above mentioned connected eight Writ Petitions, which have been clubbed together, are proposed to be decided through this common judgment, as all of them have similar and identical issues involved with regard to release of entire withheld dues on account of COLA, Leave Salary and 6th Pay Commission arrears by the respondent-J&K State Forest Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), along-with interest, in favour of the petitioners. 2. The facts of the case, as are culled out from the record of all the cases are that, the petitioners in each writ petition are entitled to COLA arrears, differential Leave Salary and 6th Pay Commission arrears, along-with interest. It will be useful to refer the reliefs sought in each of the Writ Petitions as follows:- 2.1. In SWP No. 2335/2010, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had retired on 31-07-2009, therefore, the petitioners claimed to be entitled to arrears of 78 COLA Slabs, differential Leave Salary and differential Gratuity on account of increase in last drawn wages due to release of 78 COLA Slabs. 2.2. In SWP No. 865/2015, the petitioner of this writ petition having been retired on 30-04-2010, claims to be entitled to arrears on account of 109 COLA Slabs, besides differential Leave encashment, however, differential gratuity stands received by him as per orders of the Controlling Authority. 2.3. Petitioner in SWP No. 1024/2015 having been retired on 30-04-2009, claims to be is entitled to arrears on account of 78 COLA Slabs, besides differential Leave encashment, however, differential gratuity stands already received by him as per the orders of the Controlling Authority. 2.4. In SWP No. 1028/2015, petitioner having been retired on 30-04-2007, claims to be entitled to arrears on account of 25 COLA Slabs, besides differential Leave encashment also becomes due to him as he was paid Leave Salary only on basic pay, however, differential gratuity stands already received by him as per the orders of the Controlling Authority. 2.5. In SWP No. 1029/2015, the petitioner having been retired on 30-04-2009, claims that he is entitled to arrears on account of 78 COLA Slabs, besides differential Leave encashment also becomes due to him as he was paid Leave Salary only on basic pay. Differential gratuity stands already received by him as per the orders of the Controlling Authority. 2.6. 2.5. In SWP No. 1029/2015, the petitioner having been retired on 30-04-2009, claims that he is entitled to arrears on account of 78 COLA Slabs, besides differential Leave encashment also becomes due to him as he was paid Leave Salary only on basic pay. Differential gratuity stands already received by him as per the orders of the Controlling Authority. 2.6. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in SWP No. 984/2016 had died in harness on 17-09-2010, before issuance of the G.O. 280-F of 2010 dated: 14-11-2010, wherein COLA was converted into D.A w.e.f. 01-07- 2010 and before issuance of SFC Order No. 775 of 2010 dated: 30-11-2010, whereby the then respondent No. 2, taking undue and unfair advantage of his position and authority, pressurized the Corporation employees to surrender COLA claim. Therefore, his legal heirs are entitled to arrears on account of 111 COLA Slabs from 01/2007 up to 06/2010 and 45% D.A from 07/2010 upto 17-09-2010. Differential Leave encashment also becomes due to them. Differential gratuity stands already received by them as per the orders of the Controlling Authority. 2.7. In SWP No. 2354/2018, the petitioner had retired on 31- 08-2009, therefore, he is entitled to arrears on account of 78 COLA Slabs. Differential Leave encashment and Gratuity also becomes due to him. 2.8. Petitioner in SWP No. 2871/2018 had retired on 30-06- 2008, therefore, he is entitled to arrears on account of 43 COLA Slabs. Differential Leave encashment and differential gratuity also becomes due to him. 3. The petitioners contended that the Government, vide Government Order No. 92-F of 2009 dated: 24-04-2009, accorded approval for adoption of 6th Pay Revision in PSUs (Public Sector Undertakings) effectively from 01-07-2009 and retrospectively w.e.f. 01/2006. As per the condition no: 3 of the said Government Order, PSU employees were entitled to left over COLA installments and as per condition no: 9, J&K Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, were made applicable to PSUs, as and when orders for release of pay allowances and arrears are issued, same are also applicable to the PSU employees as per condition nos. 22 & 23 of J&K Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009; that the respondent-Corporation, adopted the above G.O. No: 92-F/2009 as mutatis mutandis; that the petitioners were employees of the J&K SFC & retired on superannuation from the Corporation services, after rendering more than 27 years of service. 22 & 23 of J&K Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009; that the respondent-Corporation, adopted the above G.O. No: 92-F/2009 as mutatis mutandis; that the petitioners were employees of the J&K SFC & retired on superannuation from the Corporation services, after rendering more than 27 years of service. Since the COLA installments from 01-01-2007, were not released at the time of their retirement, as such, their terminal benefits were calculated only on basic pay; that after the retirement of the petitioners, COLA installments were released to the PSU employees w.e.f. 01/2007 to 30-06- 2010, pursuant to the Cabinet Decision Nos. 25/01/2010, No: 148/12/2010 and 79/12/2012, issued under OM No. A/44(85)-B- 989 dated: 14-11-2010 and OM No. A/44(85)-III-487 dated: 27-04-2012. In terms of the said Cabinet decisions, COLA installments payable for the year 2006 were merged with the fitment benefit accorded to the Corporation employees during the course of fixation of pay in the revised pay bands. Therefore, COLA installments are actually payable to the Corporation employees in the revised pay structure from January 2007 till June 2010. COLA arrears payable from 1/1/2007 to 06/2009 formed the part of 6th Pay revision arrears in addition to the differential amount between revised pay and pay drawn w.e.f. 1/2006. Further, vide Government Order No: 238-F of 2011 dated: 30-09-2011, 6th Pay Revision arrears were ordered to be released in five installments of 20% each installment from the financial year 2011. 4. Petitioners alleged that they have not been paid the arrears accrued to them on account of enhanced Leave encashment, Gratuity and applicable COLA slabs. Service of the J&K SFC is non-pensionable; that the respondents started making part payment of 6th Pay revision arrears in 60 installments only vide Order 392 of 2015 dated: 12-11-2015, claiming to have been issued pursuant to the Court directions. In-fact the Court direction is for release of retiral benefits but the above order is issued only in respect of 6th pay arrears that too without COLA component and is silent about release of retiral benefits i.e. enhanced amount of Leave encashment and Gratuity. 5. The contention of petitioners is that the law is well settled on the issues involved in these petitions in a catena of cases that irrespective of the financial condition of the department, entire terminal dues are required to be paid soon after the retirement from the service. 5. The contention of petitioners is that the law is well settled on the issues involved in these petitions in a catena of cases that irrespective of the financial condition of the department, entire terminal dues are required to be paid soon after the retirement from the service. Financial constraints, in any circumstances, cannot be the cause to the employer to delay release of the terminal benefits beyond the reasonable time. Government has to act as a model employer. It cannot prefer one employee over the other or one group of employees over the other group; that the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the ambit and scope of the law laid down as stated above and deserves indulgence of this Court at this stage to issue directions to the respondents to release the legitimately earned unpaid balance enhanced amount of gratuity with interest, Leave encashment and other service benefits accrued to the petitioners on account of applicable COLA slabs, as the employee and employer relation came to an end soon after their retirement; that the action of the respondents in retaining the enhanced amount of Leave encashment, Gratuity & COLA arrears accrued to them, is in gross conflict with the mandate of Article 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and the settled position of law. Finally, petitioners prayed for directions to the respondents for release of COLA installments in favour of the petitioners, also calculate and pay the petitioners the differential of leave encashment and also calculate and pay the differential of gratuity, on the basis of applicable COLA slabs, along-with interest. 6. Finally, petitioners prayed for directions to the respondents for release of COLA installments in favour of the petitioners, also calculate and pay the petitioners the differential of leave encashment and also calculate and pay the differential of gratuity, on the basis of applicable COLA slabs, along-with interest. 6. Respondents, have filed their reply in all the clubbed petitions, wherein they have categorically stated that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioners, as none of their rights have been violated; that the petitioners were State Forest Corporation borne employees and their conditions of service were governed under J&K State Forest Corporation Service Regulations 1981, as amended from time to time, therefore, they are bound by said Regulations; that the respondents have paid retiral benefits including the amount of gratuity and encashment of leave salary to the petitioners as per the Regulations of 1981 and subsequent orders issued from time to time and the Rule in vogue, which infact is accepted and admitted by the petitioners; that in the year 2010 vide Government Order No. 280-F of 2010 dated 14.11.2010, sanction was accorded to the conversion of COLA into DA w.e.f 01.07.2010 and the J&K State Forest Corporation, while implementing the said order, passed an order bearing SFC Order No. 775 of 2010 dated 30.11.2010, where-under the SFC employees were asked to surrender their COLA arrears for switching over to DA system, as applicable to the Government employees, as such, released 35% DA w.e.f., 01.07.2010 to its employees; that most of the employees have surrendered their claim accrued to them from 01.07.2007 to 01.07.2010, and, accordingly, maximum employees of the Corporation voluntarily surrendered all the COLA arrears in the year 2011; that the COLA arrears, as notified by the Government has been released in favour of the employees of the then J&K State Forest Corporation including the petitioners; that so far as pending COLA is concerned, the same has been merged by the Government while revising pay scales of PSU employees (Public Sector Undertakings) during 6th Pay Commission and the pending COLA arrears are made part of 6th Pay Commission arrears and are being paid accordingly; that on the one hand the employees including petitioners have negotiated with the respondent- Corporation for release of DA in lieu of COLA arrears, and when the DA has been released in their favour, they are now pressing hard for release of COLA arrears before the Court. 7. Further contention of respondents is that some of the petitioners, who retired from the active service are paid DA /6th Pay commission arrears and all other retiral benefits i.e. leave salary/gratuity etc. and the petitioners, who are presently in service are being paid DA with their monthly salary; that the Forest Corporation adopted a scheme in the year 2015 and issued directions vide SFC Order No.392 of 2015 dated 15.12.2025 for release of all pending arrears, including DA/6th Pay commission, to the retirees in 60 equal monthly installments, as prescribed by the Government from time to time, in favour of all the retirees. 8. Contention of respondents is that the petitioners have not come with clean hands before the Court and have tried to mislead the Court by sheer misrepresentation of facts; that in the year 1978, the J&K State Legislature passed an Act under the name "J&K State Forest Corporation Act 1978", by virtue of which the Government Lumbering Undertaking (GLU) was converted into J&K State Forest Corporation and the Corporation started its functioning from 1st day of July 1979, in terms of the said Act read with Government Order No.107 FST of 1979 dated 30-06-1979; that the erstwhile GLU employees were asked to give their option to serve the Corporation under the J&K State Forest Service Regulations 1981, amended from time to time; that the petitioners have been given due benefit as available to the Corporation borne employees like, pay scale, promotion, retrial benefits etc. under the J&K State Forest Corporations Regulation 1981; that prior to 1996, Corporation was extracting timber from forests to the tune of 1.50 corers to 2.00 corers cft. annually, however, the Supreme Court of India in a case of ‘T.N Godavaran V/S Union of India & Ors.’, vide its order dated 12-12-1996, imposed complete ban on falling down of green trees in the State of J&K and in turn has allowed extraction of only fallen, dry and diseased trees from forests; that in compliance of the said directions, the State Government constituted an expert committee (Qualitative & Quantitative Norms Committee) to decide modalities for extracting fallen/dry and diseased trees from forests; that the said Committee has recommended extraction of fallen, dry and diseased timber upto only 80 lac cft. annually from the forests of J&K State which implies that the work load of J&K State Forest Corporation has come down to 1/3rd, whileas the strength of establishment remained same; that the work has further reduced to the extent that the State Forest Corporation is presently getting marking from the Forest Department to the tune of only 40 lac cft. annually at the average, which is almost half of what has been prescribed by the Expert Committee, that means the SFC has come down to the working level of 1/5th to 1/6th of its working potential but it has to feed and support the same establishment; that because of these reasons, the Corporation is not in a position to liquidate its liabilities due to financial constraints. 9. Respondents further stated in their reply that presently, about 3350 employees are on the rolls of J&K State Forest Corporation with approximate monthly wages bill of Rs. 7.00 cores per month and Rs. 84.00 crores per annum; that during the year 2009-2010, the J&K State Forest Corporation adopted revision of pay scale for Public Sector Undertakings notified by the Finance Department vide Government Order No. 92-F of 2009 dated 24-04-2009 w.e.f 01-01-2006 and with the adoption of revised Pay Scales, the salary bill got raised from Rs. 42.28 crores to 58.34 crores and again adoption of D.A during 2010-11, the salary bill increased from Rs. 58.34 crores to Rs.77.57 crores annually, whereas the revenue of the year 2009-10 was Rs.79.41 crores including salary bill of 2010-11, when D.A becomes applicable to State Forest Corporation; that the total expenditure of the Corporation was enhanced to Rs.106.59 crores, which broke the financial base of the Corporation, as during the year 2010-11, the SFC had deficit budget of Rs.42.33 crores; during 2011-12, to the tune of Rs. 27.28 crores and during 2012-13 Rs. 4.50 crores; that during the year 2013-14, after protracted efforts by the Corporation, it has barely come out of deficit budget, which indicates that the financial condition of the Corporation was very bad and the Corporation is not in a position to pay arrears to its employees. 10. 27.28 crores and during 2012-13 Rs. 4.50 crores; that during the year 2013-14, after protracted efforts by the Corporation, it has barely come out of deficit budget, which indicates that the financial condition of the Corporation was very bad and the Corporation is not in a position to pay arrears to its employees. 10. It was further contended that Finance Department vide O.M. No. A/Misc (2012)-P 1038 dated 28- 08-2012, while addressing the issue relating to the employees of Public Sector Undertakings, directed the management that while taking any decision in this regard, the internal resource position shall necessarily be taken into consideration by the PSUs, as the State Government will not bear any liability on account of pay revision or the payment of arrears on that account; that though the Government has released D.A. for the State Government employees from time to time upto 107%, but the J&K State Forest Corporation has till date released only 72% D.A to its employees; that during the year 2014 the then Managing Director has released some arrears to few SFC employees on sympathetic grounds despite the fact that the financial position of the Corporation was not sound and it hardly meets the salary of the employees and other overhead working expenses, as there were no surplus funds available with the Corporation to pay arrears to its employees; that the payment of arrears is always subject to the availability of funds and as on 31-03-2015 an amount of Rs.129.36 crores liability has been accrued, on account of 6th Pay Commission and DA arrears; that in the year 2020 under Jammu & Kashmir Re-organization Act, the State Forest Corporation Act 1978 was repealed vide Government Order No.669-JK(GAD) of 2020 dated 22.06.2020 and ceasing of the Jammu & Kashmir State Forest Corporation on 31st March 2020, sanction was accorded to creation of Company namely, "Jammu & Kashmir Forest Development Corporation", which is presently Government owned Company and is being governed by the Company Rules and Regulations under the Companies Act 2013. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record available on file and considered the matter. 12. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record available on file and considered the matter. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, while arguing at length, submitted that the writ petitioners have retired since long and are entitled to arrears on account of COLA, differential leave salary and gratuity, but the respondent-Corporation has failed to liquidate the liability, on the excuse of financial constraints. Law is well settled that irrespective of financial constraints, payment of retiral benefits cannot be delayed. There is a catena of judgments on the subject, where it has been held that financial constraints, in any circumstances, cannot be the cause to the employer to delay release of retiral benefits beyond reasonable time. In some judgments, it has been held that payment of gratuity, with or without interest, as the case may be, does not lie within the domain of discretion but is a statutory compulsion and the employer is exempted from interest only, if delay in making payment of gratuity is caused by employee. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex-adverso, contended that none of the rights of the petitioners have been violated and they being the employees of the State Forest Corporation, their service conditions are governed under J&K State Forest Corporation Service Regulations 1981, therefore, they are bound by said Regulations. He further urged that the respondents have already paid retiral benefits including the amount of gratuity and encashment of leave salary to the petitioners as per the Regulations of 1981 and subsequent orders issued from time to time. It is his further contention that infact same has been accepted and admitted by the petitioners. Vide Government Order No. 280-F of 2010 dated 14.11.2010, sanction was accorded to the conversion of COLA into DA w.e.f 01.07.2010 and the J&K State Forest Corporation while implementing the said order passed an order bearing SFC Order No. 775 of 2010 dated 30.11.2010, where-under the SFC employees were asked to surrender their COLA arrears for switching over to DA system, as applicable to the Government employees, as such, released 35% DA w.e.f 01.07.2010 to its employees and that most of the employees have surrendered their claim accrued to them from 01.07.2007 to 01.07.2010. Learned counsel further stated that so far as pending COLA is concerned, the same has been merged by the Government while revising pay scales of PSU employees (Public Sector Undertakings) during 6th Pay Commission and the pending COLA arrears are made part of 6th Pay Commission arrears and are being paid accordingly. He further stated that the employees including petitioners, on one hand, have negotiated with the respondent-Corporation for release of DA in lieu of COLA arrears, and when the DA has been released in their favour, they are pressing hard for release of COLA arrears. 14. Learned Dy.AG appearing for the respondents, vehemently, argued that the Corporation is not in a position to liquidate its liabilities due to financial constraints and presently about 3350 employees are on the rolls of the Corporation with approximate monthly wage bill of Rs.7.00 crores per month and Rs.84.00 crores per annum. His further argument is that in the year 2020 under Jammu & Kashmir Re-organization Act, the State Forest Corporation Act 1978 was repealed vide Government Order No.669- JK(GAD) of 2020 dated 22.06.2020 and with the ceasing of the Jammu & Kashmir State Forest Corporation on 31st March 2020, sanction was accorded to creation of Company namely, "Jammu & Kashmir Forest Development Corporation", which is presently Government owned Company, and is being governed by the Company Rules and Regulations under the Companies Act 2013. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, in numerous pronouncements has already dealt with the issue relating to the subject matter. In a judgment reported as 2012 (1) JKJ 186 (HC) titled “All J&K SRTC Vs. State & Ors.”, this Court, while allowing the petition of the petitioners, directing the respondent-Corporation to finalize the grievances/entitlement vis-à-vis pensionery benefits, including COLA, leave salary, as permanent employees of the State, irrespective of the financial condition of the respondent- Corporation and to ensure release of the said benefits in favour of the petitioners, observed as under:- “4. The grievance of the petitioners is that their service benefits and pensionery benefits have been kept hostage to the own resources of the State Road Transport Corporation. Petitioners in status being civil servants are entitled to be paid benefits and such benefits cannot be made hostage to the financial condition of the respondent -Corporation when it is the responsibility of the State to pay the same. 5. Petitioners in status being civil servants are entitled to be paid benefits and such benefits cannot be made hostage to the financial condition of the respondent -Corporation when it is the responsibility of the State to pay the same. 5. It is the positive case of the petitioners that they have exercised option of retaining pensionery benefits under Government rules so were entitled to receive their pension under Govt. Pension Rules as were in force at the time of retirement from the Corporation, therefore, liability for paying pension and other retinal benefits is the responsibility of the respondent-State irrespective of financial viability of the respondent –Corporation.” 16. The judgment in All J&K SRTC Vs. State & Ors. (supra) was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in a case reported as 2013 (1) JKJ 189 (HC) titled “State of J&K & Ors. Vs. All J&K State Road Transport Corporation & Ors”. The Court held that the State Government is not only under duty to ensure that the unpaid dues on account of Dearness Allowance or Cost of Living Allowance are paid to them but also saddled with duty to settle their pension cases, having regard to the mandate of Article 240-BB and 242-BB and to add 50% of Cost of Living Allowance, to the basis pay while working out their pensionary benefits. 17. Apex Court in a case ‘H.Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.’ reported as AIR 2003 SC 1526 , observed that:- “It is evident from Section 7(2)of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, that as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer, whether any application has been made or not, is obliged to determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity. Under Section 7(3), the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Under Section 7(3), the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Under subsection 3(A) of Section 7, if the amount of gratuity is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), he shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term deposits; provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. From the provisions made in Section 7, a clear command can be seen mandating the employer to pay the gratuity within the specified time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. No discretion is available to exempt or relieve the employer from payment of gratuity with or without interest as the case may be. However, under the proviso to Section 7(3A), no interest shall be payable if delay in payment of gratuity is due to the fault of the employee and further condition that the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. Under Section 8, provision is made for recovery of gratuity payable under the Act, if not paid by the employer within the prescribed time. The Collector shall recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest thereon as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled. A penal provision is also made in Section 9 for non-payment of gratuity. Payment of gratuity with or without interest as the case may be does not lie in the domain of discretion but it is a statutory compulsion. Specific benefits expressly given in a social beneficial legislation cannot be ordinarily denied. Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest was the view taken in State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M.Padmanabhan Nayyar [ 1985 (50) FLR 145 ]. Earlier there was no provision for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. vs. M.Padmanabhan Nayyar [ 1985 (50) FLR 145 ]. Earlier there was no provision for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. Sub-section (3A) was added to Section 7 by an amendment, which came into force with effect from 1st October 1987. In the case of Charan Singh vs. M/S Birla Textiles and Another [ 1988 (57) FLR 543 SC], this aspect was noticed in the following words: "There was no provision in the Act for payment of interest when the same was quantified by the Controlling Authority and before the Collector was approached for its realization. In fact, it is on the acceptance of the position that there was a lacuna in the law that Act 22 of 1987 brought about the incorporation of sub-section 3(A) in Section-7. That provision has prospective application." 18. The moot question for consideration in light of the averments of the parties as also of the documents enclosed, relating to the decision of the respondent-Corporation as also of the Government from time to time, is, as to why the petitioners should be denied the benefits, which are made available to other Corporations. Mere denial, by referring to non-availability of the resources, is not a solution at all. The Court cannot disbelieve the petitioners, who have demonstrated that the respondent- Corporation has sufficient resources available with it, especially when its liabilities can be cleared with financial assistance from the Government of J&K. 19. It appears that the petitioners, who are the employees of the respondent- Corporation, are raising a just and reasonable issue for consideration, and the respondents, in principle, also appear to be in such agreement. However, the only difficulty, as would appear from the rival contentions, is that the Government is unable to meet the financial implications involved in extending the benefit of pension and other allied service benefits to the petitioners. In such a situation the Court, while taking note of the fact that the right to salary is a fundamental right, getting due to every employee for the service rendered against it, feels that denying such benefit to the petitioners, obviously, is bound to cause great inconvenience and prejudice to their rights. One thing is clear that the respondents do not at all dispute the entitlement of the petitioners to receive either the arrears of COLA, leave salary or gratuity. One thing is clear that the respondents do not at all dispute the entitlement of the petitioners to receive either the arrears of COLA, leave salary or gratuity. But the only dispute is with regard to the inability of the respondent-Corporation to pay the same. It is said that the Corporation is financially dependent wholly on the support of the Government extended to it from time to time and, therefore, the Government ought to be directed to provide the amount, which is payable to the petitioners. 20. In view of the above and the settled legal position, all the connected petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondents to release entire withheld dues on account of COLA, leave salary and 6th Pay arrears along-with interest in favour of the petitioners or their predecessors-ininterest, minus that amount which has already been paid to them. The amount shall be calculated by the respondent-Corporation within a period of four weeks positively from today, and a proposal seeking financial assistance, be forwarded to the Government. While calculating the same, the documents which might be furnished by the petitioners, shall also be kept into consideration. The exact amount shall be communicated to the Finance Department with a copy to the Administrative Forest Department. Further, it is made clear that, whatever, amount is calculated as arrears by the respondent-Corporation shall be provided by the Government under a separate “Head”. The said amount shall be made available in addition to the wages bill, which generally is provided by the Government to the Corporation. 21. Disposed of along-with pending application(s), as indicated above.