1. Petitioner at the age of about 70 years is craving for getting benefits which are not being extended to him by the State Government, though, allowed in his favour, in a duly constituted judicial proceedings by this Court vide its judgment dated 3rd of Nov. 2006 rendered in SWP No. 1547/2000. Why the petitioner is again before the Court, needs to be briefly summarized. 2. Petitioner was member of service in J&K Industries Ltd. Process was initiated by the State of J&K for considering suitable and meritorious persons of different services for being promoted/appointed to the Time Scale of J&K Administrative Service (KAS) which service is constituted in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 1979 (for short Rules of 1979). The Rule 5 (c) of Rules of 1979 before its amendment which was made vide SRO 472 of 2001 dated 20th Dec. 2001 provided for appointment of members of Autonomous Bodies/Government owned Public Sector Undertakings by way of selection to the Time Scale of Kashmir Administrative Service (for short KAS). The Rule 5 (c) of Rules of 1979 as it existed before the aforementioned amendment being relevant is reproduced as under:- "By selection to the time scale of the service from amongst the persons of outstanding ability and merit serving in connection with the affairs of the State in Departments/Services other than those covered under clause (b) above or in Autonomous Bodies/Government owned Public Sector Undertakings carrying pay scale equivalent or higher than the time scale of KAS, on the recommendations of the concerned department/Autonomous Body/Government owned Public Sector Undertaking respectively." 3. Fifteen percent quota was allocated to this group of employees which was called `Technical Quota’. The process for appointment to Time Scale of KAS was initiated in the year 1997. The cut of date for such consideration was fixed as 1st Jan. 1998. Petitioner was one such person who was recommended by his parent organization and whose case was considered by the Selection Committee constituted in terms of Rules of 1979 along with other eligible candidates. The petitioner on the basis of his merit and suitability was selected by the selection committee for being appointed to the Time Scale of KAS. The selection committee prepared and finalized the select list of fifty persons on 25th Oct. 1999. Petitioner figured at Sr. No. 29 of the select list. The petitioner on the basis of his merit and suitability was selected by the selection committee for being appointed to the Time Scale of KAS. The selection committee prepared and finalized the select list of fifty persons on 25th Oct. 1999. Petitioner figured at Sr. No. 29 of the select list. The selection list was approved by the State Cabinet on 30th of Oct. 2000 and Government order in sequel thereto was issued on 31st of August 2000 vide No. 1014/GAD of 2000. The petitioner did not figure in the said government order which appointed the persons mentioned thereof to the Time Scale of KAS as the petitioner had retired on superannuation on 31st May 2000. The petitioner represented for being given the benefits which would accrue to him had he been appointed to the Time Scale of KAS. The said claim of the petitioner having been negatived, constrained him to approach this court by filing SWP No. 1547/2000, which as already stated has been decided on 3rd of Nov. 2006. The petitioner had filed the writ petition on the ground that though the select list in which he figured at Sr. No. 29 was prepared and finalized on 25th of Oct. 1999, but the matter was deliberately delayed to confer illegal benefits on chosen few. The petitioner’s claim as projected in the writ petition was that he was subjected to arbitrary and hostile treatment, as according to him, in colourable and malafide exercise of power and authority, the respondents dragged on their feet, so as to pave way for appointment of some blue eyed persons to the Time Scale of KAS whose eligibility had come under cloud. The petitioner has also made reference to the Government orders vide which some persons were appointed to Time Scale in the KAS even after their retirement. This court after hearing the parties and considering the matter decided the writ petition in the following manner:- "In totality of circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents for consideration of petitioner’s case for deeming him to have been inducted into KAS only for the purpose of retiral benefits, if such benefits are not available to him in lieu of having retired on the post he held in his parent organization. Benefit of analogy with those officers who were admittedly inducted into KAS after their retirement and later, as per respondents deleted, but continuing with benefits thereof as per petitioner shall be available to him, even if and purely in the interest of justice it means a onetime departure from the norm. Consideration as such be accorded within a period four months from now, where-after the petitioner shall be at liberty to re-agitate the matter, if cause survives or accrues. The petition stands accordingly disposed of along with all connected CMPs." 4. The respondents initially failed to implement the judgment which constrained the petitioner to file contempt petition registered as 80/2007. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Government order No. 678-GASD-2008 dated 20th May 2008. The contempt petition in view of the aforementioned Government order was dismissed giving liberty to petitioner to agitate the claim, if advised to do so, and if the cause survives. The writ petition has been filed interalia on the grounds that after judgment in SWP No. 1547/2000 was rendered, the respondents could not pass the impugned Government order as that has the effect of upsetting the judgment of the court, and further that the respondents having appointed persons to Time Scale of KAS even after their retirement/death, the petitioner could not be denied the said benefit. 5. The writ petition, has been admitted to hearing on 29th Dec. 2008, when it first came before the Court for its consideration. 6. The respondents filed reply affidavit on 14th Sept. 2009. The reply affidavit filed by respondents is brief and cryptic, and does not effectively deal with the pleas raised in the writ petition. The reply affidavit does not deal with each and every paragraph of the writ petition. The reply affidavit is in essence a brief summary. In the reply affidavit the grounds which have been taken for rejecting the claim of the petitioner as summarized in Government order No. 678-GAD of 2008 dated 20lh May 2008 have been referred to and relied upon. The respondents have not dealt with the pleas taken in the writ petition, about those persons who were appointed to the Time Scale of KAS in the year 2004 after their retirement from the service and even in one case after the death of the employee. 7. The respondents have not dealt with the pleas taken in the writ petition, about those persons who were appointed to the Time Scale of KAS in the year 2004 after their retirement from the service and even in one case after the death of the employee. 7. While the case was being heard, the ld counsel for the respondents Mr. Javid Iqbal on 15th April 2010, sought ten days time to seek instructions in the matter. The ld counsel on the said date admitted that pleas taken in the writ petition have not been replied in entirety and there is some deficiency in the reply affidavit. The ld counsel submitted that he be given some time to file supplementary affidavit. The case was ordered to be listed on 3rd May 2000 and respondents were given liberty to file supplementary affidavit. The supplementary affidavit was filed on an extended date. In the supplementary affidavit details are given as to how and in which circumstances the process was initiated for appointment of officers to Time Scale of KAS in the year 1996-97. In the supplementary affidavit it is stated that about thirty two officers were inducted into KAS in 1997 after they had attained the age of superannuation and were ordered to be de-inducted in terms of Government order No. 1158-GAD dated 19th Oct. 2001. Nothing is said about those persons who were appointed to the Time Scale of KAS in the year 2004 about whom there is a specific pleading in the writ petition, and even government orders have been placed on writ record. 8. The petitioner was heard in person and for the state ld Advocate General appeared and argued the case. Case was reserved for judgment. Ld Advocate General was requested to make available the record, for that purpose ten days time was given to respondents. Record was produced and along with the record, list of citations of judgments was also produced. The petitioner has submitted written arguments. 9. Mr. M.I. Qadri, ld Advocate General, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner was not member of service on 31st of August 2000 when the order was issued by the government appointing persons to Time Scale of KAS. The ld counsel, accordingly, submitted that no benefit could be extended to the petitioner. 9. Mr. M.I. Qadri, ld Advocate General, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner was not member of service on 31st of August 2000 when the order was issued by the government appointing persons to Time Scale of KAS. The ld counsel, accordingly, submitted that no benefit could be extended to the petitioner. The ld counsel also submitted that there could not be deemed induction into KAS service. The ld counsel also submitted that the petitioner having taken all the benefits from his parent organization he could not thus seek retiral benefits by being declared to be member of KAS, to which service he was never appointed. The ld counsel also referred to reasons recorded in the impugned order and submitted that those officers who were appointed by way of promotion to the Time Scale of KAS after their retirement from service, were subsequently ordered to be de-inducted from the service in the year 2001, and those, officers otherwise being government employees were entitled to pensionery benefits. 10. Our’s is a democratic state. The people have given to themselves constitution and have adopted cabinet system of government. In our system of governance the sovereignty lies with the people. The people elect their representatives who according to the constitutional mechanism form government to run the affairs of the State. Likewise the public servants are appointed to carry out the policy and programs of a political government. The political government comprises of council of ministers which is headed by Chief Minister. The council of ministers headed by Chief Minister and the Government officers/public servants hold their offices as trustees of the people. The trust so created in them by the sovereign authority viz people make them accountable in all their actions and dealings. In order to judge the actions of the state government and its authorities, the sovereign authority viz people through constitution, have created institution called judiciary. This organ of the state is charged with the solemn duty of deciding the issues in accordance with the mandate of law. All the organs of the state are thus duty bound to discharge their functions and duties in accordance with the mandate contained in the constitution and other laws. What is supreme, is rule of law, and not an authority in our scheme of constitution. 11. All the organs of the state are thus duty bound to discharge their functions and duties in accordance with the mandate contained in the constitution and other laws. What is supreme, is rule of law, and not an authority in our scheme of constitution. 11. The petitioner was aggrieved of the denial of his right of being appointed to Time Scale of KAS by way of selection, notwithstanding, this fact that he figured in the select list. Many issues and grounds were raised in SWP No. 1547/2000. The court in its ultimate judgment directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for deeming him to have been inducted into KAS only for the purpose of retiral benefits, if such benefits are not available to him in lieu of having retired on the post he held in his parent organization. It was also directed that benefit of analogy with those officers who were admittedly inducted into KAS after the retirement, but later as per respondents de-inducted, but continued to take benefits thereof as per petitioner, shall be available to him, even if purely in the interest of justice it means one time departure from the norm. 12. The issues raised at bar are to be considered in the light of judgment passed by the court in SWP No. 1547/2000 and the record, a brief narration of events reflected therein, therefore, require to be made. The perusal of record reveals that selection committee constituted for the purpose, in its meeting held on 25th Oct. 1999 fixed Ist of January 1998 as cut of date in respect of officers for induction into KAS against Technical quota. In the same meeting the select list for induction into KAS for technical quota was finalized. Consideration, however, was deferred in respect of Sheikh Fayaz Ahmed whose eligibility was under cloud. Record further reveals that petitioner figured at Sr. No. 29 of the finalized select list. Perusal of the record further reveals that recommendation of the selection committee was processed in General Administration Department (GAD) on 26th Nov. 1999. Surprisingly note was prepared on 25th April 2000 and submitted by the then Commissioner/Secretary GAD to the Chief Secretary who on 22nd of August 2000 desired the then Commissioner/Secretary of GAD to discuss the issue on 24th August 2000. 1999. Surprisingly note was prepared on 25th April 2000 and submitted by the then Commissioner/Secretary GAD to the Chief Secretary who on 22nd of August 2000 desired the then Commissioner/Secretary of GAD to discuss the issue on 24th August 2000. On 24th of August 2000 the then Secretary to Government GAD has observed as under: - "This was discussed with Chief Secretary who after consultation with Chief Minister has desired that the recommendation of the committee along with matter arises there from may be placed before cabinet. Brief, cabinet note, may accordingly be placed." 13. The record shows that the brief cabinet memo was submitted on 25th August 2000 and was approved by the then Chief Secretary on 28th August 2000. Cabinet memo was placed before the Cabinet in its meeting held on 30lh August 2000. The Cabinet vide its decision No 148-18 dated 30th August 2000 approved the proposal submitted by GAD. The induction of Sh. Jehangir Mir and Sh. Sheikh Fayaz was also approved. The perusal of record further reveals that in the cabinet memorandum the name of petitioner appeared in the selection list at Sr. No. 29 and word `retired’ was shown against his name. It was also mentioned that officer at Sr. No. 29, viz petitioner, and at 49 Sh. GM. Hakim having retired are not eligible for appointment to KAS. Orders of induction in respect of fifty officers were issued vide government order No. 11158-GAD of 2000 dated 25th Sept. 2000. Notes 96 to 105 appearing in file bearing CD No. 0082692 with title Bashir Ahmed Malik v. State and ors are reproduced as under:- "96. It has been explained in the earlier notes that officers of feeding services who had already retired from services were inducted in KAS in 1997. It was later held that retired officers could not be inducted into KAS and orders were issued in 2001 de-inducting these officers from KAS. Several officers have filed writ petitions against their de-induction which are pending in the courts. 97. Shri Bashir Ahmad Malik cannot, therefore, draw analogy with these officers for purposes of deemed induction into KAS and the case can be rejected on that ground. 98. However, in 2004, the Government again inducted officers of some feeding services into KAS who had already retired from service on the date of issue of order. 97. Shri Bashir Ahmad Malik cannot, therefore, draw analogy with these officers for purposes of deemed induction into KAS and the case can be rejected on that ground. 98. However, in 2004, the Government again inducted officers of some feeding services into KAS who had already retired from service on the date of issue of order. These officers have taken arrears of pay and other retirement benefits as members of KAS. The case of Shri Malik is well equated with these officers who were inducted into KAS in 2004 notwithstanding the fact that they had retired from service. A view can be taken for extending retirement benefits to Shri Malik on their analogy. 99. It may be recalled that the services rendered by the officers of autonomous bodies who were inducted into KAS in 2000 in their respective Organizations were counted as qualifying service for pension and other post-retirement benefits in the Government in relaxation of rules after forgoing employer’s share of C.P Fund with interest as accrued thereon up to the date of their absorption in Government service. These orders were issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. 100. As shir Bashir Ahmad Malik has retired from JKI as an employee of that Corporation, he might have already taken leave encashment, gratuity and employer’s share of C.P. Fund. In the present case Shri Bashir Ahmad Malik could be granted only pension on the assumed pay which he would have drawn had he been inducted into KAS prior to his retirement. 101. Officers referred to in para 96 can also be considered for grant of retirement benefits as KAS officers, if their cases attain finality in the Court of Law. The case is submitted for taking a decision so that appropriate orders are issued and statement of facts filed in the Court of law. 102. Notes from para 89 onwards refer. This case if seen in totality is a genuine one in so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner who belonged to the Jammu and Kashmir Industries Ltd was considered for induction into KAS against Technical Quota and in fact was cleared by the Committee. He could not however, be finally inducted into KAS as he retired from service before issuance of induction order. The orders for induction into KAS from TQ were issued on 31.08.2000 and the petitioner retired on 31.05.2000. 103. He could not however, be finally inducted into KAS as he retired from service before issuance of induction order. The orders for induction into KAS from TQ were issued on 31.08.2000 and the petitioner retired on 31.05.2000. 103. The Hon’ble Court has directed for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for his deemed induction into KAS only for retiral benefits if such benefits are not available to him against the post which disposing of the writ petition has also observed that the consideration in the case be given purely in the interest of justice meaning thereby a onetime departure from the norms. 104. It is proposed to place the case before the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee for considering grant of retiral benefits to the petitioners as a one time exception. In the meantime, the statement of facts will be filed before the Hon’ble Court in the contempt petition in which Hon’ble Court has directed during the last date of hearing that in case statement of facts is not filed, Principal Secretary General Administration Department shall appear before the Court in person. 105. The Hon’ble Court would be apprised that the case of the petitioner is being placed before the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee for consideration as required under the laid down procedure for induction into KAS and that it is likely to take some more time to take a final decision in the matter keeping in view the procedural formalities." 14. Up to note 101 proposal was made by Additional Secretary (service), thereafter proposal was mooted by Principal Secretary to GAD and it appears, that it was approved by the Chief Secretary as well. This proposal was made on 281h Feb. 2008 wherein it was admitted in unequivocal terms that claim of petitioner is genuine. The proposal so mooted, however, appears to have suffered set-back as some Head Assistant had given a different opinion thereafter and pendency of contempt petition accelerated rejection of claim of petitioner, notwithstanding the proposal mooted from note 98 onwards. This proposal was made on 281h Feb. 2008 wherein it was admitted in unequivocal terms that claim of petitioner is genuine. The proposal so mooted, however, appears to have suffered set-back as some Head Assistant had given a different opinion thereafter and pendency of contempt petition accelerated rejection of claim of petitioner, notwithstanding the proposal mooted from note 98 onwards. The perusal of note 20 of file F-34-0001 of GAD bearing No. GAD/Legal/F-34/0001 titled Bashir Ahmed Malik v. State and ors reveal that officers who had retired from active service on the date of issuance of induction orders in the year 1997 and figured in the said order were thereafter ordered to be de-inducted in the year 2001 as those, officers had retired from service on the cut of date. Perusal of note 35 of the said file further reveals that it was decided to seek information from Accountant General as to whether those retired officers who figured in the induction list and were subsequently de-inducted have received retiral benefits as member of service or by reference to pays scale of the feeding service. The file, thereafter does not state as to whether any information was received in this behalf. The perusal of the note 98 of file CD No. 0008-2692, however, shows that the officers similarly circumstanced have taken arrears of pay and other retiral benefits as members of KAS. 15. The State Government and its authorities being repository of rights of the people, in order to enable the court to take a just and lawful decision in the lis pending before it, were duty bound to disclose all the correct facts to the court. Unfortunately, the respondents have acted like any other ordinary litigant and have with-held all the information from the court, notwithstanding the fact the liberty was granted to them to file supplementary affidavit so as to enable them to give all the facts to the court. Unfortunately even in supplementary affidavit nothing is said about the fact that those officers who after their retirement were inducted into KAS and were subsequently de-inducted in the year 2001 had in-fact taken all the retiral benefits as members of KAS. It is not also stated that officers who got benefit of induction into KAS in the year 2004 after their retirement got all benefits as retired member of KAS, though specifically pleaded in writ petition. It is not also stated that officers who got benefit of induction into KAS in the year 2004 after their retirement got all benefits as retired member of KAS, though specifically pleaded in writ petition. The authorities owe an explanation in this behalf to the court. 16. In the back-drop of the judgment passed in SWP No. 1547/2000, would it be within the province of respondents to re-consider the issues and take a decision on them and in consequences thereof up-set the judgment passed by the court. The plain answer would be that respondents have neither power nor authority to up-set the judgment of the court of law in exercise of their executive power. The respondents are duty bound to follow the mandate contained in the judgment, unless being aggrieved thereof, challenge the same before the appellate court. The judgment dated 3rd Nov. 2006 passed in SWP No. 1547/2000 has not been challenged by respondents and has thus attained finality. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s case for deeming him to have been inducted into KAS only for the retiral benefits, on the condition that such benefits are not available to him in his parent organization. Admittedly the pensionery benefits are not available to the petitioner in his parent organization where from he has retired on superannuation. The second direction which is and would be binding on the respondents was that the benefit on the analogy with those officers who were admittedly inducted into KAS after their retirement and later as per respondents, deleted but continued with benefits thereof, as per petitioner, shall be available to him, even if and purely in the interest of justice; it means one time departure from norms. The judgment was passed by the court after considering the pleadings of the parties and after hearing them, thus bind the parties interse. The petitioner was selected by duly constituted select committee for being appointed to time scale of KAS by way of selection. But for reasons indicated in the judgment (supra) issuance of appointment orders got delayed by eleven months. The petitioner was not responsible in causing of such delay. The observation made in the judgment (supra) show that delay was caused to resurrect the dead person. In view of the judgment of the court, the respondents could have not placed the case of the petitioner before the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee. The petitioner was not responsible in causing of such delay. The observation made in the judgment (supra) show that delay was caused to resurrect the dead person. In view of the judgment of the court, the respondents could have not placed the case of the petitioner before the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee. Admittedly the retired employees who were inducted into KAS and thereafter de-inducted were drawing the retiral benefits as members of KAS as nothing contrary thereto is brought on record. The petitioner was to be given the benefit derived by such class of officers in view of clear and lucid direction given in the earlier judgment as also on the parity of referred to and accepted in note 98 (supra). 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Authorized officer (Land Reforms), appellant v. M.M. Krishanmurthy Chetty, respondent reported in (1998) 9 SCC 138 at para 2 of the judgment has ruled as under: - "According to the appellant once the judgment on the basis of which the High Court had directed to dispose of the dispute relating to the excess land had been reversed by this Court, the Authorized Officer was justified in following the judgment of this Court instead of the judgment of the High Court. It need not be pointed out that the order passed by the High Court attained finality as it was not challenged before the Supreme Court. The order passed by the High Court directing the Authorised Officer to examine the dispute in the light of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Naganatha Ayyar v. Authorised officer became final although the judgment on which the grievance had to be examined itself was reversed later by this Court. We find no fault with the reasoning of the High Court. It is well settled that even orders which may not be strictly legal become final and are binding between the parties if they are not challenged before the superior courts. In the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs." (emphasis supplied) 18. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Punjab, appellant v. Jogindersingh, respondent, reported in AIR 1963 SC 913 at para 9 has ruled as under: - "9. In the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs." (emphasis supplied) 18. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Punjab, appellant v. Jogindersingh, respondent, reported in AIR 1963 SC 913 at para 9 has ruled as under: - "9. This will be a convenient stage where we might summarise briefly the provisions of the impugned rules and their impact on the right to promotion of the respondent and the other Junior teachers of the "provincialised" service to which he belongs. Before however, doing so it is necessary to mention a preliminary objection that was taken to the hearing of appeal. Along with the respondent Joginder Singh there were three others who had filed similar petitions and sought the same relief. Writ Petitions 161 and 162 of 1961, were by "junior teachers" like the respondent, while Amrik Singh petitioner in the remaining petition (Petition 163 of 1961) was a Head Master among the "provincialised" teachers. All the four petitions were dealt with together and were disposed of by a common judgment so that relief accorded to Joginder Singh the respondent before us in Writ Application 1559 of 1960 was also granted to the other three petitioners. The State however has preferred no appeal against the orders in the other three petitions, and Mr. Agarwala, learned Counsel for the respondent raises the contention that as the orders in the other three petitions have become final any order passed in this appeal at variance with the relief granted in the other three petitions would create inconsistent decrees in respect of the same matter and so we should dismiss the present appeal as incompetent. We, however, consider that this would not be the legal effect of any order passed by the Court in this appeal and that there is no merit in this objection as a bar to the hearing, of the appeal. In our opinion, the true position arising, if the present appeal by the State Government should succeed, would be that the finality of the orders passed in the other three writ petitions by the Punjab High Court would not be disturbed and that those three successful petitioners would be entitled to retain the advantages which they had secured by the decision in their favour not being challenged by an appeal being filed. That however would not help the present respondent who would be bound by our judgment in this appeal and besides, so far as the general law is concerned as applicable to everyone other than the three writ petitioners (who would be entitled to the benefit of decisions in their favour having attained finality), the law will be as laid down by this Court. We therefore overrule the preliminary objection". 19. In M.M. Krishanmurthy Chetty’s case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even orders which may not be strictly legal become final and are binding between the parties if they are not challenged before the superior courts. In the same manner in State of Punjab’s case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the finality of orders passed by the court cannot be disturbed and the advantage acquired under the court judgment has to be retained by the beneficiary thereof. The judgment dated 3rd Nov. 2006 would not thus permit for placing the case before Establishment-cum-Selection Committee. The respondents had only to consider two things which would entitle the petitioner to benefits arising from the said judgment viz he would get retiral benefits if such benefits were not available to him in his parent organization and the benefits on the analogy with those retired officers who were admittedly inducted into KAS after their retirement. The perusal of the official record, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbefore in this judgment, reveals that admittedly the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits in his parent organization and is in all fours analogous with those retired officers who were inducted into KAS after their retirement and subsequently de-inducted, as they have got the pensionery benefits as members of KAS. One distinguishing factor which favours petitioner is that the officers who were de-inducted were not in service on the cut of date fixed for their consideration for being promoted/appointed to Time Scale of KAS. 20. Petitioner was thus, entitled to get the benefits arising out of the judgment aforementioned and respondents were duty bound to issue orders for providing him pensionery benefits by treating him as being member of KAS for said purpose. All the benefits which would accrue to the petitioner in terms of the judgment (supra) have been wrongly and illegally denied to him and while doing so respondents have arrogated to themselves powers of superior court. 21. All the benefits which would accrue to the petitioner in terms of the judgment (supra) have been wrongly and illegally denied to him and while doing so respondents have arrogated to themselves powers of superior court. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India v. Madras Telephone ST and SC social welfare association, respondents reported in (2006) vol. 8 SCC 662 has held that determination of rights of certain persons in a duly constituted proceedings having attained finality by being not challenged in the superior courts, the benefit accruing there from cannot be denied even when the court or Tribunal subsequently takes a contrary view. Para 21 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: - "Having regard to the above observations and clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants whose claim to seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Parmanand lal case have been upheld or recognized by the court or the Tribunal by judgment and order which have attained finality will not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken in the judgment Madras Telephones. Since the rights of such applicants were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which determination has attained finality, a subsequent judgment of a court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not adversely affected the applicants in whose cases the orders have attained finality. We order accordingly." 22. The Government order impugned in this writ petition has the effect of displacing the judgment passed by the court on 3rd Nov. 2006 in SWP No. 1547/2000. The respondents in view of the settled legal position had neither power nor authority to do the same. A Division Bench of this court in case titled Ab. Qayoom v. M. A Chesti and ors reported in 2009 (Supp) JKJ 222 (HC) has held that Government has neither power nor authority to circumvent the judgment of the court by issuance of executive order. 23. A Division Bench of this court in case titled Ab. Qayoom v. M. A Chesti and ors reported in 2009 (Supp) JKJ 222 (HC) has held that Government has neither power nor authority to circumvent the judgment of the court by issuance of executive order. 23. The list of citations which was produced along with the record refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in which it is ruled that selected candidate cannot claim appointment as a matter of right and that empanelment of candidate does not create any right in his/her favour, recommendations of selection committee does not create any right; and there cannot be deemed promotion; promotions can be made by considering the claim in accordance with rules, no appointment can be issued when same is against rules, and that promotions cannot be claimed on illegal promotions given to others contrary to service rules; no mandamus can be issued directing promotions from retrospective date, the court cannot direct for appointing a person but only direct for consideration which is dependent upon number of facts, like APRs, non-involvement in criminal cases and suitability, when rules do not provide any benefit then same cannot be given to a person and that illegal benefit derived under court order cannot become basis to claim the same benefit. The reliance is placed on the following judgments:- "AIR 2004 SC 5768; AIR 1997 SC 1896 ; AIR 1991 SC 1631; AIR 1984 SC 1850 ; AIR 1995 SC 568 ; AIR 2000 SC 1918 ; AIR 1995 SC 277 ; AIR 1997 SC 3108 ; AIR 2002 SC 1119 ; AIR 1999 SC 894; 2000 SLJ 199; AIR 1988 (Supp)SCC 521; AIR 1994 SC 2151 ; AIR 1976 SC 376 ; AIR 2002 SC 2112 ; AIR 1995 SC 703; 2000(9) SCC 94 ;" 24. The ratio laid down in the judgments above referred are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner is only seeking benefit which has accrued to him by way of judicial pronouncement, which judicial pronouncement has attained finality. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case M.M. Krishanmurthy Chetty’s even illegal orders are binding on the authorities unless they are challenged before the superior courts. The petitioner was found to be suitable and meritorious by the duly constituted selection committee comprising of top most bureaucrats of the State. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case M.M. Krishanmurthy Chetty’s even illegal orders are binding on the authorities unless they are challenged before the superior courts. The petitioner was found to be suitable and meritorious by the duly constituted selection committee comprising of top most bureaucrats of the State. In the final selection list of fifty persons he figured at Sr. No. 29 on the basis of merit and suitability. The statutory committee had found him suitable and meritorious for being appointed to Time Scale of KAS. The said benefit was wrongly denied to him as the authority dragged on the feet for the reasons which are mentioned in the judgment dated 3rd of Nov. 2006. It is neither pleaded nor stated that the rules of 1979 expressly prohibit granting appointments to Time scale of KAS in respect of duly selected candidate who was retired from service due to unjustifiable conduct of the concerned authorities. All the issues have been dealt with in the aforementioned judgment of this court, and what is required to be done is only to implement the mandate contained in the said judgment which is the constitutional obligation of the respondents. 25. For the above stated reasons, this petition is allowed in the following terms: (a) By issuance of writ of certiorari, order bearing No. 678-GAD of 2008 dated 20.05.2008, is quashed. (b) By issuance of writ of mandamus respondents are directed to give benefits of pension to the petitioner by treating him to be member of KAS for the said purpose as provided in judgment passed in SWP No. 1547/2000, and if anything is required to be done by petitioner in this behalf he shall be obliged to do the same. The respondents to implement the judgment passed by the court in SWP No. 1547/2000 within one month from today and necessary orders be issued in favour of the petitioner. Disposed of accordingly. Record be returned.