JUDGMENT :

SHAHZAD AZEEM, J.

01. The Appellants have thrown challenge to the Order dated May 27, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge [“the Writ Court”] in WP (C) No. 2313/2021 titled ‘Manzoor Ahmad Shah v. UT of J&K and Ors.’ whereby the Writ Court directed the Principal Accountant General to grant pension and all retiral benefits to the Respondent No.1, in accordance with his pay fixed taking into account the SRO 149 of 1973 uninfluenced by any Order of the Senior Accounts Officer viz. dated May 04, 2021 and September 28, 2021.

02. The central issue in the present appeal concerns the grant of benefit of SRO 149 of 1973. Before the Writ Court, the Appellants- Respondents had taken a position that the issue involved in the matter was pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Cout. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the present appeal, the Apex Court has now adjudicated upon the said issue. The controversy, therefore, stands settled and the present appeal is required to be decided in terms of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of this development, we do not propose to burden this Judgment with an elaborate discussion of all the factual and legal pleas raised by the parties and shall delineate only those facts which are necessary for the present appeal.

03. Succinctly stated, the Respondent No.1, in July, 1977, came to be initially engaged as PDL/TDL in the Power Development Department. After completing more than ten years of service, he was regularized as Helper in the pay scale of Rs. 630–940 vide Government Order No. 248- PDD of 1987 dated October 19, 1987, which was endorsed by the Chief Engineer vide Order dated November 30, 1987 and his pay scale was temporarily upgraded to Rs. 1400–2600 vide Order No. CE/M&RE/61 of 1991 dated August 13, 1991, with effect from April 25, 1990, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the High Court. The said benefit was later discontinued in terms of Circular dated April 08, 1992, though it was subsequently restored pursuant to the directions of the High Court dated June 04, 1993. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 superannuated from service on May 31, 2021 and his pension case was forwarded to the office of the Accountant General, J&K for settlement. The pension case was, however, returned with the observation that the pay of the Respondent No.1 was required to be re-fixed, after excluding the benefit of SRO 149 of 1973, on the ground that the issue regarding its applicability was stated to be pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

04. The Appellants contend that since the Respondent No.1 had availed the benefit of SRO 149 of 1973 under the cover of Government Order No. 309-PDD of 1995 dated August 30, 1995, despite the fact that he was not a party to the litigation concerning SRO 149. According to the Appellants, upon consideration of representations and examination of the legal position, the Department concluded that SRO 149 of 1973 stood superseded by subsequent pay revision rules, including SRO 91 of 1982, SRO 370 of 1987 and SRO 75 of 1992, thereby rendering the provisions of SRO 149 inoperative. It is further contended that SRO 381 of 1981, by virtue of its repealing clause, repealed all earlier rules inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules framed in 1981, thereby nullifying the effect of SRO149 of 1973. The appellants also submit that Government Order No. 309-PDD of 1995 was intended only as a one-time special dispensation for certain in- service employees, who had obtained ITI qualification between July 01, 1972 and August 31, 1981 and who were already drawing the said benefit. It is alleged that the Respondent No.1 neither applied for the benefit under SRO 149 nor approached any Court of law seeking such benefit, but managed to obtain entries in his service book and continued to draw the benefit until his retirement.

05. Aggrieved by the non-release of his pensionary benefits, the Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition-WP (C