Per Massodi, J.— 1. Shri Zakir Hussain S/o Issa Mohammad R/o Chulicham, Samrah, District Kargil (respondent herein) was vide order No.63/Adm. of 1994 dated 3.9.1994 appointed as orderly in the grade of Rs.750-940 on temporary basis against the available vacancy in the Sales Tax Circle Leh. The appointment was admittedly without respondent's participation in any selection process for the said post. Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner (Kmr.) vide order No.102/Adm of 1998 dated 26.11.1998 promoted the respondent to the post of Process Server in the pay scale of Rs.2600-3540. Another promotion came way of the respondent, when the respondent was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant vide order No.2/Adm of 1999 dated 1.1.1999. 2. Shri Bodh Raj Sharma and 14 other petitioners in the year 1999 filed a writ petition registered as SWP No. 443/1999 alleging large scale back backdoor appointments in the Sales Tax Department without affording all eligible candidates an opportunity to compete for the filled up posts. The writ petition was allowed and all the appointments made without issuing public notice quashed. In concluding para of the writ court judgment it was made clear that the judgment would apply to "all those appointments which have been made without resorting to public notice after the year 1994." 3. The writ court judgment was questioned in a Letters Patent Appeal though without any success and was not overset in SLP preferred against the LPA judgment. 4. The Commissioner Sales Tax vide order No.17/Adm. Of 2001 dated 19.1.2001 held the respondent's appointment dated 3.9.1994 to fall within the purview of writ court judgment dated 5.7.2000. Resultantly, in terms of the Apex Court judgment the respondent though permitted to continue, was to participate in the fresh selection process to be initiated by the Department to fill up the available vacancies including one against which the respondent was appointed. The respondent apprehending his termination in consequence of the aforesaid order, filed a writ petition registered as SWF No.130/2001. 5. The respondent was able to get an order from the writ court directing the respondents to allow him to continue on the post. The petition was however, dismissed as withdrawn on 26.7.2001 with liberty to file fresh if cause survived. 6. The respondent nevertheless, to be on the safer side, participated in the fresh selection process initiated by the Department. The respondent was able to get an order from the writ court directing the respondents to allow him to continue on the post. The petition was however, dismissed as withdrawn on 26.7.2001 with liberty to file fresh if cause survived. 6. The respondent nevertheless, to be on the safer side, participated in the fresh selection process initiated by the Department. In the meantime, one Madan Lal Khajuria also appointed vide order No.100/Adm. Of 1994 dated 5.9.1994 by the Commissioner Sales Tax, like the respondent, without going through the selection process, approached the High Court with a writ petition registered as SWP No.1769/2000 claiming therein that as the writ court judgment dated 5.7.2000 in SWP No.443/1999 was applicable to the appointments made after 1994, his appointment made on 5.9.1994 did not fall within the ambit of the aforesaid judgment and that his appointment therefore was not quashed by the writ court judgment dated 5.7.2000. 7. The writ petition of Mr. Madan Lal Khajuria was disposed of on 10.11.2000 by following order:- "this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner on the basis of the facts stated in the writ petition, annexures attached with it as also on the basis of contemporaneous officials record of the Excise Department and if it is found that he has been engaged in the year 1994, his case will be dealt with independently without being in any manner tagged with the case of those appointees whose engagement was questioned in SWP No. 443/99 and other connected cases and will be granted admissible relief as per law. Till then status-quo as it exists today regarding his engagement shall not be disturbed including payment of his wages as admissible under law." 8. It needs to be pointed out that the respondents in compliance of writ court judgment dated 10.11.2000 in SWP No. 1769/2000 considered and vide order dated 8.01.2001 rejected Shri Madan Lal Khajuria's claim. Shri Madan Lal Khajuria and his two other colleagues again approached the Court with the writ petition registered as SWP No.107/2001. The writ court vide its judgment dated 31.10.2007 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order whereby services of Shri Khajuria and his colleagues were terminated. Shri Madan Lal Khajuria and his two other colleagues again approached the Court with the writ petition registered as SWP No.107/2001. The writ court vide its judgment dated 31.10.2007 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order whereby services of Shri Khajuria and his colleagues were terminated. The respondents were directed to grant same benefit to Shri Khajuria as was granted in favour of one Nasir Ahmad Qadri similarly placed as Mr. Khajuria and others, holding that the petitioners before the Court were appointees of 1994 and therefore their case would not be covered by the judgment rendered in Bodh Raj's case. 9. The respondent having discharged duties as Junior Assistant even after order No.17/Adm of 2001 dated 19.1.2001 and emboldened by the writ court order in SWP No.1769/2000 of Madan Lal Khajuria, filed writ petition registered as SWP No.1204/2006. The respondent sought following reliefs: "(I). A writ of the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondent not to apply judgments passed in Bodh Raj's case to the petitioner and treat the petitioner to be regularly appointed uninfluenced by the said judgments and admit petitioner to all consequential benefits including salary, promotion and annual increment. (II) Mandamus commanding the respondents to give similar treatment to petitioner as has been given to one Madan Lal Khajuria, referred to in the petition, and treat the petitioner to be regular employee of the department and not governed or covered by judgment passed in Bodh Raj's case. (III) A writ of the nature of mandamus or any other writ commanding the respondents to accord similar treatment and opportunity to petitioner as has been accorded to other similarly circumstanced Junior Assistants promoted along with petitioner and allowed to take type test pursuant to order dated 29.8.2006 passed by respondent No.3 and not to pass any adverse order against the petitioner till petitioner is also granted similar opportunity. (IV) A writ of the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing order dated 19.1.2001 in so for it relates to the petitioner and delete the name of petitioner from the list annexed with the petition and marked as P-F." 10. The writ petition was disposed of on 3.1.2009 and the order No.17/Adm. Of 2001 dated 19.1.2001 to the extent it related to the respondent quashed. The writ petition was disposed of on 3.1.2009 and the order No.17/Adm. Of 2001 dated 19.1.2001 to the extent it related to the respondent quashed. The respondent was held to be similarly placed as Shri Madan Lal Khajuria petitioner in SWP No.1769/2000 and entitled to the same treatment as given to Shri Khajuria. 11. The writ court order dated 5.7.2000 is assailed in the present LPA on the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. 12. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal as well as writ court record and heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. 13. There is no disagreement between the parties that the respondent was vide order No.63/Adm. of 1994 dated 3.9.1994 appointed as Orderly against the vacancy available in the Sales Tax. Circle Leh and thereafter favoured with successive promotions vide order Nos. 102/Adm. of 1998 dated 26/11/1998 and 2/Adm. of 1999 dated 1.1.1999. The appointment was admittedly made without advertising the post and affording an equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates to participate in the selection process. It is also admitted position of the parties that the backdoor appointments made in the Excise and Sales Tax Department were questioned in SWP No. 443/1999 and that all such appointments made after 1994 quashed. 14. The respondent's case before the writ court was that as the writ court judgment in SWP No.443 of 1999 was applicable to the appointments made after 1994, his case did not fall within the sweep of the judgment. The argument advanced was that the writ court judgment in question in terms of the judgment itself, would be applicable w.e.f 1.1.1995. 15. The writ court felt persuaded to accept the respondent's stand primarily on the ground that this court in Madan Lal Khajuria's case (supra) in similar circumstances directed the respondents to deal with the case of Mr. Khajuria appointed, dehorse the rules, vide order No.1OO/Adm. Of 1994 dated 5.9.1994 independently without tagging it with the case of the appointees whose engagement was questioned in SWP No.443/1999 and other connected cases. What also prevailed with the writ court was the stand taken by the counsel for the appellant before it. 16. Ld. Khajuria appointed, dehorse the rules, vide order No.1OO/Adm. Of 1994 dated 5.9.1994 independently without tagging it with the case of the appointees whose engagement was questioned in SWP No.443/1999 and other connected cases. What also prevailed with the writ court was the stand taken by the counsel for the appellant before it. 16. Ld. Counsel for the respondent made a categorical statement before the writ court that he would have no objection to grant of relief to the petitioner (present respondent) in case his claim was covered by the judgment rendered in Madan Lal Khajuria's case. 17. It is pertinent to point out that Commissioner Commercial Taxes vide communication No.107/SWP/CCT/1801 dated 1.1.2008 requested the Commissioner Secretary Finance Department to refer the judgment rendered in SWP No.107/2001 titled Madan Lal Khajuria, to the Law Department for legal opinion. The issue for consideration was phrased as under: "whether the Department of Commercial Taxes should implement the judgment and extend the benefit of interpretation arrived at by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in SWP No. 107/2001 even to those employees who were appointees of the year 1994 or file an appeal against the said judgment." 18. The Law Department vide its communication No. ET/ST/45/99-11 dated 26.2.2008 opined as under:- "There is no substantial ground for challenging the judgment dated 31.10.2007 of Hon'ble High Court (Single Bench) in SWP No.107/2001. The filing of LPA is also barred by limitation. The department is advised to implement the judgment." 19. It may be noted that Commissioner Commercial Taxes while requesting the Commissioner Secretary Finance to seek an opinion from the Law Department, also mentioned case of the present respondent who was reported to be working in the Department on the basis of the direction from the court, though appointed in the year 1994. The case of the present respondent thus is covered by the opinion rendered by the Law Department on 26.2.2008. Shri Madan Lal Khajuria was given benefit in SWP No.1769/2000 and his appointment though not made after undertaking a selection process in accordance with the rules, was maintained and his service not terminated as was done in case of the candidates appointed after 1994. Shri Madan Lal Khajuria was given benefit in SWP No.1769/2000 and his appointment though not made after undertaking a selection process in accordance with the rules, was maintained and his service not terminated as was done in case of the candidates appointed after 1994. It is well settled law that once the Government decides to implement a judgment and give benefit under the judgment to the petitioner it cannot resist a similar claim on same facts projected by a person or deny the benefit to him that was extended under the judgment. 20. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner while elaborating the case set up in the appeal, has laid emphasis on the participation of the respondent in the fresh selection process initiated following judgment rendered in Bodh Raj's case. It is urged that once the respondent participated in the selection process he could not turn round and be heard insisting that earlier decision taken by the Government as regards his appointment on 3.9.1994 was untenable. There, in our opinion, is no merit in the argument advanced. Once it is held that the initial appointment of the respondent on 3.9.1994 as orderly was beyond challenge and not liable to be quashed, the respondent cannot be divested of all the benefits that have accrued to him following such appointment including successive promotion earned by him because of his merit and the length of service rendered. The respondent made his intention clear that he was not ready to forego his claim as regards validity of his appointment dated 3.9.1994 by filing writ petition registered as SWP No.130/2001 and felt satisfied only after the writ court vide order dated 15.3.2001 protected his status and he otherwise got an assurance from the respondents that his service would not be discontinued. The participation of respondents in the selection process in the said background cannot be taken as a decision to acquiesce the stand of the appellant as reflected in order No.17/Adm of 2001 dated 19.1.2001 that the respondent's appointment dated 3.9.1994 fell within the ambit of writ court judgment in Bodh Raj's case. The respondent admittedly continued to work as Junior Assistant till the cause for filing the writ petition SWP No. 1204/2006 arose. 21. The argument that the concession extended by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent was not binding on the respondents, is equally specious. The respondent admittedly continued to work as Junior Assistant till the cause for filing the writ petition SWP No. 1204/2006 arose. 21. The argument that the concession extended by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent was not binding on the respondents, is equally specious. Though the writ court has dealt with merits of the case and determined respondent's rights against the backdrop of writ court judgment in SWP No.1769/2000, yet it is pertinent to point out that the concession extended was not on an erroneous assumption or understanding of a legal principle, rule or norm but reflects the stand of the respondents on factual aspects of the case. Viewed thus, it may not be right to conclude that admission made by the counsel for the appellant, is not binding on the applicant. More so, when the judgment, brought to the notice of the writ court, stands implemented by the appellant. 22. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.