JAMMU AND KASHMIR ROAD TRANSPORT CORP EMPLOYEES COORDINATION UNION SRINAGAR TH.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (TRANSPORT) AND ORS
WP(C)/1939/2025 · 2026-05-13
Sanjay Dhar
Writ Petition (Civil)body1939
DailyLaw.ai
[ 1939 DAILYLAW 1 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 1939 DAILYLAW 1 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
WP(C) 1939/2025 Page 1 of 3
Serial No. 11 Regular Cause List.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 1939/2025 CM(5131/2025
JAMMU AND KASHMIR ROAD TRANSPORT CORP EMPLOYEES COORDINATION UNION SRINAGAR TH.ITS GENERAL SECRETAR.
…Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND ORS.
Through: Mr. Altaf Haqani, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Asif Wani, Adovcate.
…Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
ORDER 13-05-2026
1. The issue involved in the present case relates to extension of benefits in terms of SRO 14 of 1996 and SRO 225 of 1997 to the petitioners, who happen to be employees of the erstwhile ‘Government Transport Undertaking’. The said entity was subsequently converted into the State Road Transport Corporation, whereafter Order No. 26-TR of 1979 dated 29.03.1979 came to be issued governing the service conditions and fate of the employees of the erstwhile GTU. 2. In the previous round of litigation, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of writ petition, bearing SWP No. 3082-J/2010, which came to be disposed of in terms of order dated 01.07.2013, whereby the respondents were directed to take immediate necessary steps for
WP(C) 1939/2025 Page 2 of 3
offering exercise of the requisite option to the petitioners. It was further provided that, in case any member of the petitioner-union had retired, the benefit of such option shall also be extended to those retired employees as well. The Court further directed that, depending upon the options so exercised by the members of the petitioner-union, the respondents shall take further steps to settle the matter. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the respondents issued Government Order No. 110/TR/AF of 2014 dated 10.12.2014, whereby the following directions were issued:
“i) the entitlement of petitioners to the pensionary benefits shall be verified by the administrative department on case to case basis. ii) The benefit shall not be extended to the employees engaged in J&K SRTC on or after the conversion of GTU. iii) The accumulation on account of employer’s share of CPF alongwith up-to-date interest and pensionary benefits, including gratuity, if any, paid as per their existing entitlement as Corporation employees shall be recovered from them and credited to M.H. 0071 while sanctioning their pension cases; and iv) The orders shall be issued with the approval of competent authority.”
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government Order, the members of the petitioner-union are stated to have exercised their option by electing to be governed by the service regulations applicable to Government employees
WP(C) 1939/2025 Page 3 of 3
insofar as the same pertain to pensionary benefits. Thus, the members of the petitioner-union are, also, governed by Cabinet Decision No. 151 dated 19.02.1979, pursuant whereto Government Order No. 25-TR of 1979 dated 27.03.1979 came to be issued. 5.
This Court, while deciding an identical issue in writ petition bearing SWP No. 1088/2017, titled “Amarjeet Singh and Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others”, decided on 24.04.2026, has taken a view that the issue regarding entitlement of employees of the erstwhile GTU, like the petitioners herein, already stands settled by the Division Bench of this Court in “Shah Mohammad vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others”, LPASW No. 23/2009, decided on 17.08.2011, by holding that an employee of GTU, after joining the respondent-Corporation, cannot claim any benefit beyond the pensionary benefits available to a Government employee. It was further held that the claim of such employees with regard to applicability of SRO 14 of 1996 and SRO 225 of 1997, which had not been adopted by the respondent-Corporation, is without merit. 6. Since the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in Amarjeet Singh’s case (supra), as such the present writ petition is bound to meet the same fate. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 13-05-2026 Shaista-PS