The Government's intention, as per the Government Order, was clear in favor of providing the benefit of counting the past service rendered by the writ petitioners in the Society towards qualifying service for pension under the Government.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. This appeal clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 31.12.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in SWP No. 141/2014 titled Balwan Singh and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir whereby the wit petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 12 herein [“the writ petitioners”] has been allowed with a direction to the appellants herein to count the services rendered by the writ petitioners in the Society for the purpose of pensionary benefits only.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Gupta, AAG appearing for the appellants, we deem it appropriate to give brief resume of factual antecedents leading to filing of this appeal.

3. The writ petitioners were the permanent employees holding different posts carrying different pay scales in the Rural Electric Cooperative Society Limited, Vijaypur (Samba) [“the Society”]. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir was a major shareholder/member of the Society. In the year 1997, the appellants vide Government Order No. 382-PDD of 1997 dated 16.02.1997 wound up and dissolved the Society which was established under Government Order No. 52-PDD of 1978. Consequent upon dissolution of the Society, 159 subordinate employees appointed by the Society from time to time were absorbed in the Power Development Department [“PDD”] by corresponding creation of posts of equal grade and designation in the PDD subject to the only condition that the absorption of such employees shall not operate disadvantageously vis-à-vis the existing employees of the PDD in the matter of seniority. On similar lines, about 101 daily rated workers working in the Society were also taken on the roll of PDD, to be regularized as per the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994. Simultaneously, with the dissolution of the Society and absorption of its subordinate employees in PDD, all assets, properties, equipments and actionable claims of the Society were also taken over by the Chief Engineer, M& RE Wing as liquidator appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jammu.

4. The writ petitioners, some of them were retired and some were still in service of the PDD, filed SWP No. 141/2014 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the appellants herein to count the period of service rendered by them in the Society to be a qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

5. Despite service and having cause their appearance before the Writ Court, the appellants chose not to file any objections. As is apparent from the interim order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Writ Court, further time was granted to the appellants to file reply subject to payment of Rs.4000/- as costs, to be paid to the writ petitioners, making it clear that in case of failure, the matter would be considered on its own merit. Left with no option, the Writ Court, on the basis of averments made in the writ petition and the record annexed therewith, considered the case set up by the writ petitioners in ex parte and came to the conclusion that the refusal of the appellants to count the services rendered by the writ petitioners in the Society for the purpose of payment of pension was illegal, arbitrary and unfair.

6. The writ petition was allowed by the Writ Court on the ground that the Government Order No. 382-PDD of 1997 dated 16.12.1997 whereby the writ petitioners along with others were absorbed in the PDD clearly indicated that the writ petitioners were entitled to all the benefits upon their absorption other than claiming seniority over the existing employees of the PDD. The Writ Court also found that, under similar set of circumstances, the Government had treated the services rendered by employees in some of the Cooperative Societies before their absorption in the Government service towards qualifying period for pension. Vide judgment dated 31.12.2018, the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the appellants to count the services rendered by the writ petitioners tow