1. The petitioner was vide Government Order No. 563-Agri of 1982 dated 25th June, 1982 appointed as Block Development Officer in the grade of Rs. 875-1400 on probation for a period of two years. The respondent State soon after said appoint­ment realized that it was made de hors rules and in violation of mandate of section 133, Jammu and Kashmir Constitution. The petitioner was accordingly discharged a little less than three months after his appointment vide Government Order No. 806 dated 8.09.1982. The order discharging the petitioner was questioned in writ petition registered as SWP No. 470 of 1982. The writ petition was allowed vide Judgment dated 18.11.1987 and the Government order No. 806 of 1982 dated 8.9.1982 quashed. The petitioner after succeeding in the writ petition submitted a representation to the respondents seeking his placefnent in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. date of his initial appointment i.e. 25th June, 1982, grant of selection in his favour and also his induction in Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service. The representation made did not find favour with the respondents and the peti­tioner filed another writ petition registered as SWP No. 1519/1988, reiterating the stand projected in the representation. The prayer made in the writ petition was three-fold. Firstly the petitioner prayed that he be placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f 25th June, 1982; secondly the petitioner's prayer was that the petitioner be awarded selection grade and also inducted into Kashmir Administra­tive Service; and the petitioner last of all prayed that Government order No. 379-Agri of 1986 dated 23.09.1986, whereby the respondents 4 to 22 were appointed and treated as senior to the petitioner be quashed and the petitioner declared senior to the respondents 4 to 22 in the writ petition. 2. The Writ Court allowed the first prayer made by the petitioner and directed the respondents 1 to 3 "to award grade of Rs. 1000-1560 to the petitioner from the date of his substantive appointment." As regards other two reliefs, the Writ Court was of the opinion that the reliefs hinged on issuance of seniority list of the cadre by respondents 1 to 3, and as seniority list was admittedly not issued, it was not possible to deal with prayer made by the petitioner. 1000-1560 to the petitioner from the date of his substantive appointment." As regards other two reliefs, the Writ Court was of the opinion that the reliefs hinged on issuance of seniority list of the cadre by respondents 1 to 3, and as seniority list was admittedly not issued, it was not possible to deal with prayer made by the petitioner. The writ Court in the said background directed respondents 1 to 3 "to issue the seniority list in CD & NES department indicating the place of each officer of the cadre including the petitioner from the date of their respective substantive appointments" and also to give consequential benefits to the petitioners as per the seniority. The Writ Court Judgment was, though unsuccessfully questioned in Letters Patent Appeal No. 66/1992 before the High Court and thereafter in Special Leave Petition No. SLP (Civil) No. 10660/2003 before the Supreme Court, dismissed on 4.4.2003 and 14.7.2003 respectively. 3. The respondents in compliance of Writ Court Judgment dated 27th Septem­ber, 1991, issued Government Order No 49-Agri of 1994 dated 29.11.1994, whereby the respondents upgraded the post of BDO held by the petitioner w.e.f. 25th June, 1982. The respondents vide Government order No. 280-Agri of 1995 dated 30th June 1995, posted the petitioner as District Panchayat Officer carrying status and respon­sibility higher to that of Block Development Officer. 4. In compliance of Writ Court Judgment Final Seniority List was also issued vide Government order No. 219-Agri of 1998 dated 15th May, 1998, wherein petitioner was shown "at appropriate place" in the order of seniority list. The respondents, thereafter vide No. 707-GAD dated 18th June 1999, inducted the petitioner into Kashmir Administrative Service w.e.f. 23.09.1997. 5. So much about the background facts, now a closer look at the case set up by the petitioner in the present petition. 6. The petitioner not satisfied with the action taken orders issued by the respondents towards compliance of judgment dated 18th November 1991 has filed instant petition seeking following reliefs. 5. So much about the background facts, now a closer look at the case set up by the petitioner in the present petition. 6. The petitioner not satisfied with the action taken orders issued by the respondents towards compliance of judgment dated 18th November 1991 has filed instant petition seeking following reliefs. i) Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the final seniority list issued vide No. 219-Agri of 1998 dated 15th May 1998 and the Government order No. 707-GAD dated 18th June 1999, to the extent it gives retrospective effect to the petitioner's Kashmir Administrative Service w.e.f. 1997 instead of 1987 as also Government order No. 862-GADof 2001 dated 1.8.2001, placing petitioner at serial No. 202A in the order of seniority instead of serial No. 1 and Government Order No. 90-GAD of 1999 dated 20.01.1999 read with Government order No. 978-GAD of 2005 dated 5.8.2005, placing petitioner at serial No. 128 in the seniority instead of serial No. 1. ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refix the seniority of the petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. 25th June, 1982 with consequential benefits including induction into Kashmir Administrative Service to declare private respondents (4 to 141) junior to the petitioner. 7. The reliefs, serialized above are claimed on the following grounds:- 1.) That the petitioner's appointment as Block Development officer in the grade of Rs. 875-1400 (un revised) was regularized vide Government order No. 877-Agri of 1991 dated 24th October, 1991 w.e.f. date of his initial appointment i.e. 25th June, 1982 and that in wake of Government order No. 1285-GAD1983 dated 20.8.1983, whereby to improve the quality of Admin­istration and introduce the desired degree of efficiency and mobility in Administrative Service, pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 was provided for all the departmental services including CD & NES, the petitioner was to be placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. date of his initial appointment i.e. 25th June 1982, more so when vide Government order No. 657-GAD1986 dated 20th October, 1986, Twenty four (24) posts of Additional Block Development Officers were created in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 and juniors to the petitioner appointed in the aforesaid grade. 2.) That as the seniority of petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 and juniors to the petitioner appointed in the aforesaid grade. 2.) That as the seniority of petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 was to be reckoned w.e.f. date of his initial appointment dated 25th June 1982, the final seniority list issued vide Government order No. 219-Agri of 1998 dated 15th May, 1998 placing the petitioner at serial No. 18 in Annexure B after the officers shown in Annexure A to have been appointed as Block Devel­opment officers on 30th June 1982 i.e. after the date of his appointment viz 25th June 1982 of the petitioner, placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2125-3600 after the petitioner, temporarily promoted as District Panchayat Officer in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 (revised) vide No. 686-Agri of 1983 dated 28th September 1983, did not correctly place the petitioner in the order of seniority. 3.) That the seniority of the petitioner was to be reckoned with the officers promoted as Block development Officers in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 vide Government Order No. 686-Agri of 1983 dated 28.09.1983 and not with the private respondents promoted much later to the posts carrying grade of Rs. 1000-1560 and that the placement of private respondents in the seniority list was in violation of quota and Rule 24 of Jammu and Kashmir Services (Classification, Control and Appeal, rules) 1956. 4.) That the petitioner, having regard to the date of his appointment and placement in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 i.e, 25th June, 1982, deserved to be placed above the officers promoted vide Government Order no. 686-Agri of 1983 dated 28th September 1983 and also the private respondents pro­moted, after the petitioner, and the petitioner accordingly deserved to be inducted into Kashmir Administrative Service on the basis of his aforesaid seniority much before the date w.e.f. which the petitioner has been so inducted. 5.) That one Shri Khalid Hussain (Retd.) placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 (pre-revised) vide Government Order No. 565-1983 dated 27.07.1983 was inducted into Kashmir Administrative Service vide Govern­ment Order No. 678-GAD1983 dated 13th August 1993, w.e.f. 17th October, 1988 and Shri P.N.Ganjoo without his having been placed in the grade of Rs. 5.) That one Shri Khalid Hussain (Retd.) placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 (pre-revised) vide Government Order No. 565-1983 dated 27.07.1983 was inducted into Kashmir Administrative Service vide Govern­ment Order No. 678-GAD1983 dated 13th August 1993, w.e.f. 17th October, 1988 and Shri P.N.Ganjoo without his having been placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 was inducted into Kashmir Administrative Service vide Government Order No. 906-GAD of 1991 dated 23rd September 1991 w.e.f. 1st January 1987 and that the petitioner being senior to both Shri Khalid Hussain and Shri P.N. Ganjoo deserved to be inducted into Kashmir Administrative Service w.e.f. 1st January 1987 i.e. the date his junior was so inducted. 8. The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that notwithstanding Govern­ment Order No. 1285-GAD 1983 providing uniform pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560, the post of BDO continued to carry the sanctioned pay scale of Rs. 875-1400 till 1993, when the grade was released to the members of CD & NES (Gazetted Officers). Admitting that the petitioner was in compliance of judgment dated 27.09.1991 in SWP No. 1519/1988 placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560, w.e.f. date of his initial appointment, it is insisted that the judgment was implemented erroneously by the respondents in as much as the petitioner did not hold any substantive appointment against post of Block Development Officers on 25-6-1982 and regularized against the post vide Government Order no. 877-Agri of 1991 dated 24.12.1991. It is pleaded that appointment in an irregular manner without any selection process would entail computation of seniority from the date of regularization and that the petitioner was not to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. 5.8.1982, additionally on the ground that the post held by the petitioner i.e. Block Development Officer continued to carry the pay scale of Rs. 875-1400 till 1993. The petitioner is stated to be not similarly situated as P.N. Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain, as both held cadre posts before reference date i.e. 18.10.1988. It is insisted that erroneous implementation of Court Judgment cannot confer any benefit in contravention of the rules and that the petitioner does not have right to ask for seniority over and above the private respondents in as much as the petitioner was not subs tantively appointed against the post of Block Development Officer on 25th June 1982. 9. It is insisted that erroneous implementation of Court Judgment cannot confer any benefit in contravention of the rules and that the petitioner does not have right to ask for seniority over and above the private respondents in as much as the petitioner was not subs tantively appointed against the post of Block Development Officer on 25th June 1982. 9. I have gone through the pleadings and record available on the file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. The petitioner's case is brief and simple. Grievance projected in the petition is that the petitioner appointed as Block Development Officer in the grade of Rs. 875-1400 on 25th June, 1982 and subsequently placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment, has a right to get his seniority in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560, reckoned w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment. It is pleaded that the official respondents have conferred promotional benefits including induc­tion into Kashmir Administrative Service on the private respondents and the petitioner oblivious to the seniority position of the petitioner, and that the petitioner was entitled to such benefits and induction in to Kashmir Administrative Service much before the said benefits were made available to the petitioner. The respon­dents while opposing the writ petition harp on their age-old stand that the initial appointment of the petitioner was in violation of the Rules and thus irregular and that the seniority of the petitioner was to be reckoned w.e.f. 24th October, 1991, i.e. the date, the petitioner's services were regularized vide Government Order No. 877-Agrtof 1991. It is next urged that, as the post of Block Development Officer against which, the petitioner was appointed, though in violation of Rules, carried a pay scale of Rs. 875-1400 till the year 1993, and the petitioner thus could not have been regularized in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. the date of his initial appoint­ment. 11. A closer look on the record, that has piled up since litigation over the subject commenced way back in 1982, reveals that the stand taken by the respondents in opposition to the petition has no legs to stand on. It needs to be pointed out that Government Order No. 806 dated 8.9.1982, discharging the petitioner, stands quashed vide Judgment dated 18th November, 1986 in SWP No. 470/1982.The Judgment is no more open to question and has assumed finality. It needs to be pointed out that Government Order No. 806 dated 8.9.1982, discharging the petitioner, stands quashed vide Judgment dated 18th November, 1986 in SWP No. 470/1982.The Judgment is no more open to question and has assumed finality. It is thus too late in the day for the official respondents to question initial appointment of the petitioner, who after his initial appointment has been favoured with promotions, given responsible positions in the Administration and inducted in Kashmir Admin­istrative Service. The matter as regards legality of the initial appointment of the petitioner as Block Development Officer, stands since concluded, is no more open to be agitated and the ground set up in the reply as regards nature of initial appointment of the petitioner thus is not available to the respondents. 12. The date of substantive appointment of the petitioner against the post of Block Development Officer and his placement in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 is also free from any doubt. The matter has been finally settled vide Judgment dated 27th September, 1991 in SWP No. 1519/1988. It may be recalled that the Writ Court vide aforesaid Judgment commanded the official respondents to award grade of Rs. 1000-1560, to the petitioner from the date of his substantive appointment. The operative part of the Judgment is to be read against the backdrop of conclusions drawn by the Writ Court set out in the Judgment. It would be appropriate to extract following passage from the Judgment "....The petitioner though appointed on probation for a period of two years, without any specific order regarding completion of such probation period is presumed to have completed the same without any contrary order. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 25th June, 1982 nationally will count against regular vacancy and his seniority also will count from the date of his first appointment, against the post of EDO in accordance with Rule 24 of the J & K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956..." 13. The observation of the Writ Court thus leaves no room for any doubt that the petitioner's date of substantive appointment is to be taken on 25th June, 1982 and the petitioner, given benefit of the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 from the said date. 14. The observation of the Writ Court thus leaves no room for any doubt that the petitioner's date of substantive appointment is to be taken on 25th June, 1982 and the petitioner, given benefit of the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 from the said date. 14. The position taken by the official respondents that even if the petitioner was assumed to have been substantively appointed against the post of Block Development Officer w.e.f. 25th June, 1982, still the petitioner could not be placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560, in as much as, the post of Block Development Officer carried pay scale of Rs. 875-1400, till 1993 and that the petitioner deserved to be placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 only thereafter, is also contradicted by the record. It needs to be pointed out that the official respondents by the Government Order No. 1285-G AD of 1983 dated 20th August, 1983 took a policy decision to have a uniform time scale of Rs. 1000-1560 with selection grade of Rs. 1200-1800 to the extent of 25% of the posts in as many as 15 departmental services including the Jammu and Kashmir Community Development and National Extension (Gazetted) Service i.e. the service to which the petitioner belonged on the date, the Government Order was made. The policy decision as is evident from the text of the aforemen­tioned order was taken to improve the quality of administration, introduce the desired degree of efficiency and mobility in administrative service, as also to avoid stagnation at different levels and to provide equal opportunities and facilities for induction into Kashmir Administrative Service to the officers of said Departmental consequential benefits including induction into Kashmir Administrative Service. In LPA No. 144 titled Zafarullah Bhat and Ors. v. State and Ors. Decided on 11.08.2005, (reported as SLJ 2006 Vol. I page 333) : 2005 (Supp.) JKJ HC-443 Judgment dated 27th September 1991, SWP No. 1519/1988, made basis for place­ment in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. 20th August, 1983 in other Writ Petitions including SWP No. 486/95, fell for consideration of the Division Bench. The LPA Court observed:- "As rightly pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General, Ab. Majeed Wani stood on different footing from the appellants. He was direct recruit appointed in the direct recruit quota as Block Development Officer on 25th June, 1982. Though a direct recruit, he was appointed in the grade of Rs. The LPA Court observed:- "As rightly pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General, Ab. Majeed Wani stood on different footing from the appellants. He was direct recruit appointed in the direct recruit quota as Block Development Officer on 25th June, 1982. Though a direct recruit, he was appointed in the grade of Rs. 875-1400............(He) succeeded in getting re appointed on substan­tive basis from the date of initial appointment, pursuant to Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 470/82. In SWP No. 1519/88, which he later filed for grade, the learned Single Judge found that respondents 4 to 22 (some of whom were co-petitioners with the appellants in the connected Writ Peti­tion or, may be, the appellants themselves) had been promoted as Block Development Officers in their own pay and grade but subsequently pro­moted on regular basis in the grade of Rs. 875-1400 from dates prior to 25th June, 1982 (the date of appointment of the petitioner) which effected his rights. The learned Judge also noticed that appointments against twenty four posts of Additional Block Development Officers created in 1986 was made in the scale of Rs. 1000-1560 and the petitioner being also a direct recruit, he naturally claimed the same scale." 18. The LPA Court summarized the stand- taken by the respondents before the LPA Court as regards placement of the present petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 as under: "......Mr. Magray submitted that there was a good rationale in allowing the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 to Ab. Majeed Wani as he had been appointed on the basis of common examination conducted by the Public Service Com­mission for various Gazetted Services and there could be no justification to appoint him in the grade of Rs. 875-1400 merely because he was allocated to Community Development (Gazetted) Service". 19. The stand taken by Mr. A.M. Magray, sr. AAG before the LPA Court thus takes wind out of sails of the case set up by the respondents in opposition to the present petition. 20. The respondents vide Government Order No. 567-GD1986 dated 20th Oct. 1986, created 24 posts of Additional Block Development Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560. In the circumstances it does not suit mouth of the official respondents to contend that the petitioner and his colleagues appointed prior to 20th October, 1986 would continue to be in the grade of Rs. 1986, created 24 posts of Additional Block Development Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560. In the circumstances it does not suit mouth of the official respondents to contend that the petitioner and his colleagues appointed prior to 20th October, 1986 would continue to be in the grade of Rs. 875-1400, when their juniors appointed against the posts of Additional Block Development Officers, created vide aforesaid order would be placed in grade of Rs. 1000-1560. 21. The Writ Court in SWP No. 1519/1988, noticed this aspect of the matter as well and proceeded to observe. ".... Again not rebutted by the respondent that in the year 1986, 24 addi­tional EDO's having been appointed and placed in the grade of 1000-1560, possibly adhering to the implementation of SRO relied by the petitioner. Once Additional BDO is given a higher grade of 1000-1560, it does not appeal to reason that a full-fledged territorial BDO, will he kept in a lower grade i.e. Rs. 875-1450 only. The respondents have not reconciled this disparity of pay between the BDO and Additional BDO, nor this type of situation can be justified under any Rule. Two posts of identical nature are allowed to run in two different grades. Thus the petitioner in the event there was no grade of 1000-1560 in 1982, for the post of BDO can claim this grade after the issuance of Government Order No. 1285-GD of 1983..." 22. In any case all controversies regarding the status of the petitioner stand settled by virtue of Government Order No. 877-Agri of 1991 dated 24th December, 1991, whereby the petitioner as Block Development Officer in Rural Development Department has been regularized w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment. The plea raised by the official respondents that the Government Order No. 877-Agri of 1991 dated 24th September, 1991 erroneously regularized the service of the petitioner as Block Development Officer w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25th June, 1982 in view of above discussion does not sound convincing. 23. In absence of any clarification, modification or revocation, the respondents cannot be, after 20 years, heard, saying that the aforesaid Government Order was erroneously made. Needless to mention that no such plea was raised in SWP No. 1519/1998. 23. In absence of any clarification, modification or revocation, the respondents cannot be, after 20 years, heard, saying that the aforesaid Government Order was erroneously made. Needless to mention that no such plea was raised in SWP No. 1519/1998. The Judgment dated 27th September 1991 in the said petition, it needs no emphasis, has assumed finality and the issues dealt with therein and in the earlier petition SWP No. 470/1982, cannot be re-opened and that too after more than two decades. 24. The contention that the litigation period i.e. the period between the Gov­ernment Order No. 806 dated 8th September, 1982 and 18th November 1987 i.e. the date of Judgment in SWP No. 470/1982, whereby the Government Order No. 806 dated 8th September 1982 was quashed, is not to be counted while reckoning/computing seniority of the petitioner, is bereft of any merit. The quashment of aforesaid order has reference to the date of order and not date of the Judgment. The plea is raised under the mistaken belief that the Government Order No. 806 dated 8th September, 1982 continued to be valid till the date of Judgment i.e. 18th November, 1987. This apart all controversies regarding the period of litigation stand resolved in wake of the Government Order Nos 877-Agri of 1991 dated 24th December, 1991, 49-Agri of 1994 dated 29th November 1994 and 280-Agri 1995 dated 30th June 1995.The arguments pales into insignificance also because the Government order No. 877-Agri of 1991 dated 24th December 1991 has been made in continuation of Government order No. 786-Agri of 1988 dated 26.10.1988 whereby services of other two officers appointed as BDO's with the petitioner vide government order No. 563-Agri of 1982 dated 25.06.1982 were regularized. 25. I am conscious that the petitioner even when benefit of Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20th August 1983 was extended to him, could have been placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 with effect from the date of the order i.e. 20th August 1983 in as much as the order was not retrospective in nature but prospectively made room for placement of the officers of 14 Gazetted Services in the uniform pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 to achieve the purpose spelt out in the Government Order. However, as Writ Court judgment dated 27th Sep. 1991 in SWP No. 1519/1988 directed placement of the petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 to achieve the purpose spelt out in the Government Order. However, as Writ Court judgment dated 27th Sep. 1991 in SWP No. 1519/1988 directed placement of the petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 from the date of his substantive appointment and the Govt. vide order No. 877-Agri of 199-Dec. 1991 directed regularization of petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.6.1982, the date of placement of the petitioner in the said grade is no more open to question. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that the Writ Court judgment dated 27th September 1991 in SWP No. 1519/1988 has assumed finality as challenge to the judgment in LPA, and SLP has failed. In the circumstances there is no scope for making any comment on the said aspect of the case. The fact that the Writ Court vide judgment dated 27th September 1991 in SWP No. 1519/1988 directed placement of the petitioner in the grade of 1000-1560 from the date of his substantive appointment and not with effect from the date of Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20th August 1983 was noticed by LPA bench in LPA Court in Zaffarullah Bhat and others v. State of J & K and Others 2006 (1) SLJ 333 :2005 (Supp.) JKJ HC-443, The Court observed; "It is true that learned judge referred to Government Order No. 1285-GAD dated 20th August, 1983 in allowing the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 to the petitioner but significantly, he was allowed that grade from the date of his substantive appointment and not 20th August 1983. If the Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 was the basis, he should have been provided the grade from 20th August, 1983. Secondly, as rightly pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General, Abdul Majid Wani stood on differ­ent footing from the appellants" 26. The petitioner's case that the officers junior to the petitioner including S/Sh. P.N. Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain were inducted into KAS unmindful of seniority of the petitioner's finds support from the record. Secretary Rural Development in his communication No. CD/Genr 1/39/79(III) dated 26.11.1999, admitted, that the petitioner was senior to S/Sh. P.N. Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain, and thus entitled to be considered for induction into Kashmir Administrative Service ahead of said officers. The stand was reiterated in communication NO. Secretary Rural Development in his communication No. CD/Genr 1/39/79(III) dated 26.11.1999, admitted, that the petitioner was senior to S/Sh. P.N. Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain, and thus entitled to be considered for induction into Kashmir Administrative Service ahead of said officers. The stand was reiterated in communication NO. RD/Writ/10/2006 dated 22.06.2006 addressed by Under Secretary to Government Rural Development De­partment to Commissioner/Secretary, Government General Administration De­partment. It reads; 27. "How Sh. Khalid Hussain was elevated to KAS is not known to the Rural Development Department. The reason for elevation of Sh. P.N. Ganjoo junior to Sh. Wani is also not known to this department. This stand was communicated to the GAD on 1.2.2002(Copy enclosed). The GAD in reference to their OM No. GAD (Ser) KAS/27/99 dated 30.7.1999 have also been informed vide this department letter dated 26.11.1999 (Copy enclosed) thatboth S/Shri P.N. Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain, KAS officers were junior in seniority in CD & NES Department to Shri Abdul Majid Wani. This department also conveyed no objection to GAD if Sh. Wani is concerned for induction into KAS retrospectively i.e. from the date his above two juniors were inducted into KAS (Copy enclosed)." 28. What emerges from the above discussion is that the petitioner substantively held the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. 25th June, 1982, the date of substantive appointment and was thereafter entitled to promotion(s) including induction into Kashmir Administrative Service, having regard to the date the petitioner was placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560. The petitioner accordingly is entitled to the promotion(s) that would come his way, taking the petitioner to have held the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. 25th June 1982,1983 as also entitled to consideration for his induction into Kashmir Administrative Service before his juniors who notwith­standing seniority of the petitioner, have been favoured with promotion and induction into Kashmir Administrative Service. Since the petitioner has been agi­tating the matter of his seniority and consequential benefits, for last a little less than three decades and quite a number of juniors of the petitioner promoted and inducted into Kashmir Administrative Service must have retired on superannua­tion, it is not possible to determine the exact date(s) the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion(s) to the next higher post and inducted into Kashmir Administrative Service. Such an exercise is to be done by the official respondents, expected to have available the necessary record, of course in light of the above conclusions. 29. For the reasons discussed above the writ petition is allowed. The Govern­ment Order No. 219-Agri of 1998 dated 15th May, 1998 and the Government Order Nos 707-GAD dated 18.06.1999and 862-GAD of 2001 dated 1.8.2001 to the extent these Government Orders relate to place given to the petitioner in the seniority lists and his date of induction into Kashmir Administrative Service are quashed. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed by Writ of Mandamus to settle seniority of petitioner, reckoning the date of placement of the petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 as 25th June 1982 and as a follow up thereto determine his date of induction into Kashmir Administrative Service having due regard to the date of induction into Kashmir Administrative Service of his juniors including S/Sh. - S/Sh. P.N. Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain and thereafter extend all benefits to the petitioner available in consequence of reification of his seniority and determination of date of induction into Kashmir Administrative Service. The respondents 1 to 3 shall complete the exercise within eight weeks from the date copy of this Judgment is served on the respondents so that the petitioner, who has been before the Court for last three decades, has the satisfaction of having got his grievances redressed, though after a long, avoidable and inordinate delay.