JUDGMENT
Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.

1. In these twelve review petitions, the petitioners are seeking review and recalling of common judgment and order dated 08.06.2011 whereby and whereunder this court dismissed the bunch of Letters Patent Appeals bearing nos. 211/2009, 209/2009, 210/2009, 213/2009, 224/2009 and 227/2009, and COD nos. 329/09, 325/09, 327/09, 343/09, 345/09 and 351/09, preferred in groups by the State of J&K in the connected writ petition SWP No. 1250/2002 along with SWP No. 1468/2004, 945/2002, 27/2003, 79/2003 and 142/2007 against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2009 passed by the learned Writ Court held the petitioners-respondents entitled to be extended retiral and pensionary benefits by adopting the J&K CSR, however, only to the extent Jammu and Kashmir Industries Employees Service Rules and Regulations are silent in this behalf.

2. The review petitioners have taken different grounds in their respective review petitions which are briefly enumerated below;

i) that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Jawahar Lal Sazwal and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors., reported in (2002) 3 SCC 219, is not applicable to the respondents-writ petitioners because that case is applicable to only pre-1963 J&K Government employees, who had been absorbed in JK Industries and not to employees of JK Industries appointed after 1963 and borne on its cadre

ii) it is submitted that the respondents-writ petitioners are governed by the judgment rendered in SWP No. 287/1982 titled Tej Krishan Kachroo and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors., which has attained finality and the writ petitions have been filed by the respondents, writ petitioners who were admittedly appointed after the formation of the Corporation in 1963. These employees of J&K Industries having accepted the judgment passed in SWP No. 287/1982 cannot get any benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Jawahar Lal Sazwal and ors case reported in (2002) 3 SCC 219, as the said judgment is a judgment in personam, with respect to only those employees of the J&K Government whose services were being utilized by JK Industries.

iii) that the respondents-writ petitioners are not entitled to the pensionary benefits as the Rules of the Corporation which are applicable to the respondents-writ petitioners does not provide for such scheme and the Single Bench as also the Division Bench have not considered this issue, therefore, there is error apparent on the face of the judgment.

iv) that the respondents-writ petitioners are not entitled to the payment of pension as they were paid contributory provident fund in lieu of payment of pension but the said important issue has not been considered by the writ court or Letters Patent Bench.

v) that the Review petitioner had raised the issue with reference to non entitlement of the respondents-writ petitioners for pensionary benefits with reference to application by laws and standing orders of the JK Industries Ltd., which are totally different from those applicable to the Government employees working in the J&K Government and that the Corporation is an autonomous body, as such rules and regulations applicable to the employees of State Government are not applicable to them.

vi) that the writ petitioners, respondents in the review petitions, had not raised any cLalm with reference to payment of pensionary benefits on the strength of any applicable rules but had projected the cLalm on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Jawahar lal Sazwal's case (supra) which case had different and distinguishable facts as the petitioners in that petitions were employees working in different Corporations of the Government before the formation of the Corporation and were absorbed in JK Industries' but the writ petitioners, respondents in the review petitions were directly recruited in JK Industries after the formation of the Corporation in this year 1963.

3. Mr. N.A Beigh, Id Sr. AAG appearing on behalf of the review petitioners

Click Here to Read the rest of this document