These five petitions are clubbed for hearing in terms of on record directions of the LPA Bench on hearing LPAs against Single Bench judgment dated 31-10-1991, governing all five writ petitions. The writ petitions were allowed with directions in terms of the relief sought by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench on agreement of the parties set aside the above Single Bench Judgement and the Single Bench was requested to hear the matter afresh after the pleadings are completed by the parties in terms of directions contained in the judgement. 2. This judgment shall govern all five cases as common questions of fact and law are involved. It is conceded by the parties that the private respondents except Mohammad Ashraf Shuntoo represented by Mr. Altaf Haqani, have either retired on superannuation or are no more in service. 3. The basic facts germane to adjudicate and dispose of the matters need to be taken note of. Petitioners of these writ petitions were appointed on ad hoc basis as Tehsil Supply Officer/Supervisor in pay scale of 280-520 in 1973-74. Their services were regularised in terms of Govt. Order 496/FST of 1977 dated 7-10-1977. Petitioners claim that in the light of this regularisation order dated 7-10-1977, their period of service prior to this date is to be reckoned towards seniority, pay and increments and other benefits, as they would be deemed to have been regularised on initial appointment. The private respondents have been admittedly promoted after the petitioners entered service as above, as well on ad hoc basis. However, they have been regularised by order passed earlier to 7-10-1977. Private respondents claim of appointment in the cadre of Supervisor/Tehsil Supply Officers earlier to petitioner is not a fact and the benefits including promotion given to them on that basis would prejudice the service rights of the petitioners. Showing them senior to petitioners is illegal. Petitioners pray that they may be placed in seniority list at proper place and their service prior to 7-10-1977 may be reckoned as service regularised by the said order. Petitioner have also alleged that they are graduates and appointed to direct quota. The private respondents have been shown senior to them on an erroneous assumption when their academic qualification is just matric or under matric and have less merit than the petitioners. Petitioners claim of seniority and consequential benefits has been the prejudice of their service rights. Petitioner have also alleged that they are graduates and appointed to direct quota. The private respondents have been shown senior to them on an erroneous assumption when their academic qualification is just matric or under matric and have less merit than the petitioners. Petitioners claim of seniority and consequential benefits has been the prejudice of their service rights. The petitioners prayer therefore, is for direction showing petitioners senior to private respondents after considering their service prior to 7-10-1977 as regular and counting towards seniority and consequential benefits including promotion. Quashment of promotion orders of the private respondents, vis-a-vis the petitioners are prayed. 4. The respondents have questioned the maintainability of the writ, as they allege that no rights of the petitioners are violated. Petitioners initial appointments as Tehsil Supply Officers on ad hoc basis is not denied. Their regularisation consequent on recommendation of Divisional Recruitment Board by the Government Order 496 FST of 77 dated 7-10-1977 is not also denied. The private respondents appointment on promotion to the post of Tehsil Supply Officers/Supervisors on regular basis till 1974 to 1976 is asserted. These private respondents claim that they are senior to the petitioners in as much as they stand promoted to the posts of Chief Inspectors, much earlier to the petitioners. Their appointment has been on regular basis. The period spent by petitioners on ad hoc appointment till 7-10-1997, cannot be counted as their substitute appointment. So it is not to count towards their seniority and other service benefits that may flow from such appointment and seniority. The respondents appointment and promotion as Chief Inspectors from the post of Tehsil Supply Officers/Supervisors is in order and legal. Respondent Mr. Shuntoo, the actual contesting respondent, in his counter has averred that he has been duly selected by the Selection Board on interview in November, 1976 as the other eligible appearing candidates were found unfit and unsuitable, therefore, they were not recommended. The petitioners were allowed to continue for un-known and may be for malafide reasons without being duly appointed at entry point on the recommendations of Recruitment Board. The basic appointment of petitioners as Tehsil Supply Officers on ad hoc basis was made against the rules. The petitioners were allowed to continue for un-known and may be for malafide reasons without being duly appointed at entry point on the recommendations of Recruitment Board. The basic appointment of petitioners as Tehsil Supply Officers on ad hoc basis was made against the rules. Though the Government allowed these 12 Tehsil Supply Officers, ad-hoc appointees, to continue from their initial date of appointment but they were regularised, as such, Tehsil Supply Officers only from the date of order dated 7-10-1997. The ad hoc appointment cannot confer service and other benefits on petitioners, as compared to substantively appointed employees, the respondents. Seniority has been maintained correctly under the J&K Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. For purpose of seniority, the date of first appointment is to be counted from the date of first substantive appointment. In such circumstances, petitioners have no cause and the subsequent promotion given to respondents on seniority, merit and suitability cannot be questioned by the petitioners. 5. Seen thus, the writ petitions are misconceived, more so when petitioners have been also subsequently promoted as Chief Inspectors on their own turn. The writ petition is prayed to be dismissed. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointment of petitioners by direct recruitment against direct quota and respondents by promotion against the cadre posts in question in the service have not been made under rules. The appointment has been made in violation and in disregard of the rules. The rules providing for direct recruitment to cadre posts of TSOs in the prescribed ratio has been done away with alongwith the eligibility criteria of higher qualification of graduate for the posts. Petitioners are graduate, whereas the respondents are matriculate and under matriculates. In order to give benefit to these unqualified persons the rules have been tampered with and amended subsequently in 1975. Petitioners as also the respondents were appointed on different dates only on ad hoc basis followed by regular appointment. Petitioners in such circumstances claim the length of continuing officiation as the basis of seniority. It was in this context that the State issued Government Order 496-FST-97 dated 7-10-1977 according sanction to the continuance of appointment of the petitioners from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment and further providing that the incumbents will be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis. 7. It was in this context that the State issued Government Order 496-FST-97 dated 7-10-1977 according sanction to the continuance of appointment of the petitioners from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment and further providing that the incumbents will be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis. 7. The word `hereafter appearing in the order has created confusion in as much as the other side is literary assigning it the meaning of regularisation taking effect from 7-10-1977 and not 1974, thereby making the respondents, who too were appointed earlier on ad hoc basis, as senior to petitioners as in their case the government has issued such order of regularisation earlier to 17-10-1977. The petitioners after their initial appointment in 1973-74, have continuously worked and discharged their official duties as TSOs till the above Government order dated 7-10-1977 (Annexure-G) came to be issued. The length of temporary service rendered by them, notwithstanding termed as ad hoc appointment cannot be ignored and brushed aside to sheer disadvantage of the petitioners, more so, when the equitable dispensation of justice demands computation of the period towards seniority. 8. Mr. A. Haqani, representing respondent No. 11 (Mohd Ashraf Shuntoo), the only contesting respondent, contests the stand taken by the petitioners. He submits that no doubt petitioners as well as respondents appointment is under Jammu and Kashmir Food and Supplies Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1972 as amended from time to time, the qualification and method of recruitment is provided in Schedule-A to these rules for the posts of TSOs, clubbed with some other posts, referred at item No. 3 of Schedule-A to these rules. The minimum qualification for direct recruits is graduate or equivalent, whereas, for filling up of the posts, it is the ratio of 3:1 between direct recruits and in service candidates from feeder posts figuring at Clause IV of the schedule. The recruitment has to be by competitive test by the concerned recruitment board. The seniority is to be governed by J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal.) Rules, 1956 as provided by Rule 14 of above Rules of 1972. The recruitment has to be by competitive test by the concerned recruitment board. The seniority is to be governed by J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal.) Rules, 1956 as provided by Rule 14 of above Rules of 1972. Though the respondent has been appointed on promotion as in service candidate from the feeder class to the post of STO on ad-hoc basis, but same was regularised earlier to petitioners appointment by Government Order in November, 1976 after he was interviewed by the Selection Boards, Therefore, having been promoted to the cadre post in the service in terms of Rules, he is senior to petitioners who have entered the service after him, notwithstanding their initial entry on temporary basis earlier to respondent (s) when respondents were officiating on lower cadre in Class IV posts referred Schedule-A of the rules. 9. It was for this reason that in the tentative seniority list, respondents have been shown senior and even the Government order Annexure-G, Regularising the petitioners, expressly states that the petitioners shall be deemed to be regularised from the order. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim seniority over the head of the respondents. The counsel further contends that based on prospectivity of the Government order (Annexure-3) on interpretation, respondents have been rightly shown senior to petitioners, even in the final Seniority list, which has been issued some time back, during pendency of the writ petition. The counsel also submits that no relief for quashment of this seniority list is claimed. The respondents as well as the petitioners have since been promoted to the post of Chief inspectors with seniority position inter se the parties, retained as shown in the lower feeding cadre of the service. 10. The Ld. Addl. Advocate General, Mr. M.H. Attar, submits that though petitioners have been appointed earlier in time than respondents, but in view of the Government order (Annexure-G), they too rank Junior to respondents as laid down by the order. So long the order is interpreted as prospective by the Government (through Administrative department) the seniority of the petitioners is to be counted from 7-10-1977, when their service is regularised. It is for the Court to authoritatively lay the rule of seniority in this case. 11. The rules of 1972, (for short `the rules), provide Recruitment to the Food and Supplies Subordinate Service. It is for the Court to authoritatively lay the rule of seniority in this case. 11. The rules of 1972, (for short `the rules), provide Recruitment to the Food and Supplies Subordinate Service. Besides, qualification and method of recruitment to the cadre posts of the service are shown in Schedule (A) to the Rules. The seniority of the members of the service is to be regulated by Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and the matters not provided by the rules of 1972, are to be treated as residual matters governed by Rules, regulations and orders as applicable to the State Civil Service in general. Eligibility for appointment/promotion to any class, category or grade in the service is on fulfillment of qualification laid down in Schedule (A) and the method and ratio of appointment between direct recruitment and promotees is also given in Schedule-A. Rule 6 and Rule 8 specifically provide that no person can be promoted to any post unless he/she fulfills the requirements of recruitment as provided in the rules. 12. Rule 9 provides that recruitment to various posts shall be made by concerned recruitment board on competitive test to be conducted twice in a year after an interval of six months. The syllabus for the competitive tests are also laid down. For the post of Tehsil Supply Officer/Supervisor/Inspector/Sr. Store-keeper, etc, shown as Class 3 posts in Schedule-A, the minimum qualification for direct recruits is graduate and no qualification as such is provided for promotees from Class IV. 25% recruitment to these posts is by promotion from Class IV and 75% by direct recruitment. Initially, petitioners to these writ petitions, all graduates have been appointed to direct quota of TSO cadre posts and it is not denied by the other side that even respondents have been appointed against direct recruitment quota. From record, it appears that no roster for direct recruits and promotees is maintained. Both sources have been utilised to fill up posts available for direct recruitment. Even so, by notification SRO 78 dated 19-2-1975, this Schedule-A has been done away with and instead the Schedule-A appended to the rules provides category of posts, designation and schedule/grade. Obviously, the qualification and recruitment as also method of recruitment inter se promotees and direct recruits, and ratio of such recruitment have been done away with. Even so, by notification SRO 78 dated 19-2-1975, this Schedule-A has been done away with and instead the Schedule-A appended to the rules provides category of posts, designation and schedule/grade. Obviously, the qualification and recruitment as also method of recruitment inter se promotees and direct recruits, and ratio of such recruitment have been done away with. This being the position neither any qualification nor appointment to a service by different sources nor the ratio of such sources, as earlier provided/prescribed, is any more to be observed to fill up the cadre posts of the service. Petitioners when initially appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis in 1973-74 occupied the posts and were so appointed in terms of Rules 1972 but when their appointment was regularised by Government Order (Annexure-G) in 1977, Rules of 72 stood amended in 1975 as referred above. The Government /competent authority took near about four years to pass regularisation orders. Obviously, the interregnum doing away with the qualification, provision of two sources to fill the posts of services in recruitment and ratio thereof, cannot and should not operate to prejudice the incumbents. Reasons are not forth-coming on record for this decision of the Government. Respondents, who were also appointed on ad hoc basis, much after the petitioners were regularised earlier and here respondent No. 11 was so regularised in November 1976. The petitioners were regularised only in October, 1977. It is admitted on either side, co-petitioners as well as respondents, were regularised on interview by the concerned board. Now the question in such circumstances is whether the length of service rendered by petitioners earlier to regularisation order (Annexure-G), is to be computed towards the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre post of TSO or whether it is to be excluded as is done by Government Order as interpreted by the respondents counsel. 13. There can be no dispute as laid down in catena of cases inter alia by judgment of Constitutional bench in Direct Recruits Class II Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990) SCR 900 : 1991 AIR SCW 2226) that appointment according to rules is a condition precedent to count seniority. Similarly it is settled legal position that temporary or ad hoc or fortuitous appointments etc is not an appointment according to rules and temporary service cannot be counted towards the seniority. Similarly it is settled legal position that temporary or ad hoc or fortuitous appointments etc is not an appointment according to rules and temporary service cannot be counted towards the seniority. But it is equally established practice and precept of law that initial temporary/ad hoc appointment to a cadre post in service followed by regular service where such initial appointment is linked to confirmation cannot be ignored on confirmation by competent authority. 14. In V. Serenivasa Reddy and Ors v. Govt. of Andhara Pardesh and Ors. (AIR 1995 SC 586), cited by Mr. Haqani, apart from re-stating the general legal principles governing the question of seniority, the case deals with a situation where question of seniority inter se direct recruits and temporary appointees is raised and direct recruits appointed earlier in point of time to temporary appointees are counted senior to latter. 15. Another authority cited is State of Tamil nadu and Anr. v. E. Paripornam and Ors. (1992) LAB.I.C. 1803 (SC). In this case appointment to the post of temporary Junior Professor in Law College were made under specific provisions of Rules and subsequently these temporary and Junior Professors alongwith others were selected by Public Service Commission on regular basis and the selectees were arranged on select list as per merit. It was held that such temporary Junior Professor cannot claim seniority by inclusion of their temporary service, when Government order provided the seniority shall be determined as per ranking in ad-seriatim approved list of the Public Service Commission. 16. In Excise Commissioner Karnataka v. V. Sreekanta (1993 Lab IC 1319 SC), Inspector of Excise (Junior) were appointed on ad hoc basis. However, rules for regularisation of service were framed subsequently. Seniority was counted under the rules from the date of regularisation and not from the date of ad hoc appointment, as such, the ad hoc appointment period was not to be counted towards seniority. It would be seen that these cases have no application to the facts and circumstances of the cases, at hand. 17. In view of the fact that rules of 1972, have not been observed in letter and spirit, the appointments cannot be said to fall within the sweep of the rules. It would be seen that these cases have no application to the facts and circumstances of the cases, at hand. 17. In view of the fact that rules of 1972, have not been observed in letter and spirit, the appointments cannot be said to fall within the sweep of the rules. At the time of initial appointment of the petitioners, their seniority was to be governed by Rule 24 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 inter se direct recruits and in service appointees, but by the time petitioners and respondents were regularised, the very concept of direct recruits and promotees was done away with and obviously, it cannot be said that the promotion between petitioners and respondents is to be computed by the rule governing inter se seniority between the direct recruits and in service promotees. When no rule is followed to govern the seniority in this case, then both petitioners and the respondents are to be treated belonging to same category/cadre of the service, so that their seniority is determined by reference to their first appointment to such category/cadre/. The word `date of first appointment would mean first substantive appointment. The date of first appointment, on the clear vacancy subject to confirmation or passing of examination or test. In this case petitioners and respondents were not put to test at one and the same time and no select list assigning the places on merit list to each of them (which could have been done) is drawn up. In such circumstances, Government Order dated 7-10-1977 (Annexure-G), according sanction to continuance of temporary service of 12 TSOs from the date of their initial appointment and further providing that they will be deemed appointed on regular basis after the word `hereafter assumes importance. It will have to be also read in the context of Annexure-H which provides for fixation of pay of these TSOs. Pursuant to the above Government Order, the grade and fixation of pay of petitioners in the cadre post of TSOs while allowing earned annual increments from the date of their initial appointment, is also significant. It will have to be also read in the context of Annexure-H which provides for fixation of pay of these TSOs. Pursuant to the above Government Order, the grade and fixation of pay of petitioners in the cadre post of TSOs while allowing earned annual increments from the date of their initial appointment, is also significant. Annexure-R2, communication dated 7-5-1979 by Director Food and Supplies to the Secretary to Government recommending treating of 12 TSOs as regular employees from the date of initial appointment, which does not involve any financial implications, is also to be read in the backdrop of the Government order No : 496-ES of 1977 dated 7-10-1977 (Annexure-G). Similarly Annexure R-3 and R-4 whereunder Dy. Commissioner Food and Supplies desires that the matter be examined by the Finance Department (Accounts Code) as to why 12 STOs cannot be treated in regular service from the date of their initial appointment cannot contextually be lost sight of. 18. In the above Background and context interpretation of the word `hereafter figuring towards end of the order No. 496-ES of 1977, the bone of contention between the parties assumes importance. The Government Order Annexure-G is reproduced as under :- "Government Order No. 496-FST of 1977 Dated 7-10-1977. Sanction is accorded to the continuance of the ad hoc appointment of 12 Tehsil Supply Officers as per list Annexure `A to this order from the date of their initial appointment they will be deemed to have been appointed as regular Tehsil Supply Officers hereafter. By order of the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- Secretary to Govt. Food, Supplies & Transport Deptt". 19. The Annexure-A to this Government order refers to the date of initial appointment of the TSOs including the petitioners as 1973-1974. The pay, increments etc are to be worked out in the grade of TSO from the initial appointment of these TSOs. It is not in dispute that these TSOs have been paid their outstanding pay dues including arrears of pay, increments, etc. from their initial appointment date pursuant to the above order. Annexure-R2, R3, R4 also indicate how and in what manner Director Food and Supplies and Dy. Commissioner Food and Supplies, approached the matter to treat petitioners as regular employees from their initial appointment. All the Financial Implications were cleared by the State Govt. pursuant to the order and petitioners were paid the whole pay, increments, etc. Annexure-R2, R3, R4 also indicate how and in what manner Director Food and Supplies and Dy. Commissioner Food and Supplies, approached the matter to treat petitioners as regular employees from their initial appointment. All the Financial Implications were cleared by the State Govt. pursuant to the order and petitioners were paid the whole pay, increments, etc. as employees having earned the pay, increments, etc, in the grade provided for the cadre post of TSOs in the service. It is a well settled principles of law that while interpreting any provision of law, rule or Government order whole of its substance has to be considered and no word can be allowed to be taken surplusage or in isolation out of the context to suit some purpose here or there. The word has to be given its dictionary meaning and is to be interpreted in a way to advance the purpose for which the order is issued. The word `hereafter cannot, on a plain reading of the order, be interpreted in a manner as to negate the part of the order providing for continuance of the ad hoc appointment of the STOs from the date of their initial appointment. If the word `hereafter is to be interpreted to mean that the regularisation is from the date of order namely 7-10-1977, then the use of the words continuance of the ad hoc appointment of STOs form the date of their initial appointment is surplusage. The order when read as a whole conveys that the STOs listed in Annexure-A to the order are regularised from the date of their initial appointment. The word `here-after, in the order has reference to the nature of the cadre post in the service held by the TSOs rather than to a subsequent date from which such posts are held. The word `hereafter, cannot be interpreted to mean as giving a cut of date of the TSOs for purpose of initial ad hoc appointment and regular appointment in the already above referred background and context, the word `hereafter, fairly, equitably and justly interpreted, conveys that the initial ad hoc/temporary appointment of TSOs is to be treated as regular appointment of TSOs from the date of their initial appointment and shall be deemed so after the order of October 7, 1977. 20. 20. It is also equally known position of law that once ad hoc/temporary appointments are continued without any break and ultimately such officiating service are regularised, such appointment is to take effect from the date of initial appointment. Placing any other interpretation on the order Annexure-G would hardly advance the interest of administration. The petitioners who did possess the minimum qualification for the post and continued to hold the same on officiating basis for about four years, cannot be recorded junior to others recruited much after them. The inaction or fault of the Govt. in not passing the appropriate orders for regularisations during all these years, cannot operate to the disadvantage of the petitioners. They are not at fault and cannot be blamed for failure of the government to pass the orders. Respondents who have been appointed after petitioners to the grade/post in the cadre, even on ad hoc basis, cannot take shelter under the word `hereafter, without showing as to why in the facts and circumstances of this case, regularisation of the petitioners, who did come to hold the posts earlier to them, is to operate prospectively and not retrospectively. Though, petitioners and respondents have been promoted to the post of Chief Inspectors, but the question of seniority cannot still be ignored. To deal with a situation justly and equitably, it may be just for the Government to relax the rules to an extent to mitigate or avoid undue hardship to any case or class of cases or to meet a particular situation or take care of a very deserving case (s). See 1. State of Maharashtra v. J. A. Karandikar, AIR 1989 SC 1133 2. J. C. Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 857 3. Sandeep Kumar Uppal & Ors. v. State of J&K, AIR 1989 SC. 2812. 21. In G. P. Doval and ors Vs Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 329, while following Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. (1981) 1 SCR 449, the Supreme Court observed :- "..."Officiating service in a post for all practical purpose of seniority is as good as service on a regular basis. 2812. 21. In G. P. Doval and ors Vs Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 329, while following Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. (1981) 1 SCR 449, the Supreme Court observed :- "..."Officiating service in a post for all practical purpose of seniority is as good as service on a regular basis. It may be permissible, within limits for Government to ignore officiating service when claims of seniority come before it, provided the rules in that regard are clear and categorical and do not admit of any ambiguity and cruelly arbitrary cut-off of long years of services does not take place or there is functionally and qualitatively, substantial difference in the service rendered in the two types of posts". It was said that service rules will have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16, It is thus well settled that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. In Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 2000 SC 2808) inter-alia in the context of ad hoc appointment, it is observed :- "... In the Service Jurisprudence person who possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continues in the post for fairly long period, then such appointment cannot be held to be "stop-gap or fortuitory or purely ad hoc...." 22. Based upon length of service, seniority, as an acquired right of an employe, cannot be so computed as to ignore the length of officiation and the Supreme Court in S. L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. with two other civil appeals (AIR 1999 SC 3616) observed :- "12. Seniority itself based upon length of service is an acquired right to an employee which entitles him to be considered for further promotion. It is generally regulated by Service Rules. Such rules normally provide for determined seniority with reference to the date of appointment to the class, category and grade to which the appointment is made. It is determined only on the basis of the length of service. It is generally regulated by Service Rules. Such rules normally provide for determined seniority with reference to the date of appointment to the class, category and grade to which the appointment is made. It is determined only on the basis of the length of service. Such length of service may be on the basis of the difference of continuous officiation or on the basis of the difference of substantive appointment in the cadre or grade or service which may be reckoned from the date of confirmation on the basis of regularisation. 13. It is now well settled that even in case of probation or officiating appointments which are followed by a confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment or on probation cannot be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous officiating service for determining the place in the seniority list. Where the first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure and such appointee is approved later on, the authority shall relate back to the date on which his appointment was made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation. In this regard we fortify our views by the judgment of this Court in G. P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 329 : AIR 1984 SC 1527 : 1984 Lab IC 1304)." 23. Viewed thus, the seniority of the petitioners is to be counted from the date of their initial appointment and the continuous officiating period without break is to be counted and computed towards their seniority. Petitioners continuance in the cadre post uninterruptedly, till regularisation of their service, in the facts and circumstances of the case, entitle petitioners for inclusion of the entire length of their officiation in their seniority and not just from the date of their confirmation about four years after their initial appointment. The Government/competent authority having failed to consider after overlooking their obligatory duty to pass necessary orders on the question of regularisation cannot be said to pass an order to the disadvantage of the employees when no fault can be laid on them. Petitioners have right to count the length of service with seniority, accordingly. The contention that the petitioners have not prayed for quashment of seniority list cannot be countenanced. Petitioners have right to count the length of service with seniority, accordingly. The contention that the petitioners have not prayed for quashment of seniority list cannot be countenanced. When the petitions were filed way back in 1983, no final seniority list had come in to being and in case such list, as submitted by Mr. Haqani, has come into being about 16 years, thereafter, same is not brought on record. Besides, the relief prayed for in the petition, though takes care of situation yet appropriate relief is sought in the petition with regard to officiating promotion to respondents. Even, respondents are alleged to be junior to petitioners and not entitled to earn a promotion in the body of the petition. In this case as "equitable dispensation of justice", the question of seniority cannot be simply ignored or not considered by efflux of time. The contention cannot be accepted adverse to petitioners, even when much is not to be gained by either party due to efflux to considerable time and most of the petitioners and respondents have retired or died. 24. In the above view of the matter and in result, the petitions are allowed in terms as under :- The Government Order 496-FST/77 dated 7-10-1977 shall mean and always deemed to have meant that the regularisation of 12 Tehsil Supply Officers figuring in Annexure-A to the Order, including petitioners, shall be deemed to have been regularised from the date of their initial appointment as shown in the Government order. The length of continuous officiation of petitioners as Tehsil Supply Officers from their initial appointment till the Government Order shall be construed and computed towards the seniority of the respective Tehsil Supply Officers. These Tehsil Supply Officers shall be treated to have been appointed on the Tehsil Supply Officers cadre post of subordinate Service of the Food and Supply Department with effect from the date of initial appointment. They shall be shown in the seniority list at appropriate place (s). The seniority list, tentative or otherwise, issued shall be non existent so far as the Tehsil Supply Officers/petitioners are concerned and their place of seniority shall be shown in the list and records as per the aforementioned directions. The consequential benefits of promotion, if any shall also flow from such seniority, subject to operation of rules/executive fate in the field, in all other respects. The consequential benefits of promotion, if any shall also flow from such seniority, subject to operation of rules/executive fate in the field, in all other respects. All connected petitions shall be deemed to have been disposed of by this order.