Per Massodi, J.;— 1. Letters Patent Appeal on hand arises out of the writ Court Judgment dated 06.05.2011 in writ petition SWF No. 967/2004 titled Ajay Khajuria v. State of J&K and others, whereby the writ Court has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case and held it appropriate for the State Government to constitute a three members Committee comprising of three senior members from the Tourism Department, General Administrative Department and the Finance Department to look in to, the pleas taken by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as regards release of grade and fixation of petitioner's seniority in terms of Division Bench Judgment in LPA No. 203/2001 and having regard to the benefit accorded to respondent No. 4 in the petition. 2. The respondent's case before the writ Court was that he appointed, as Tourist Officer in the grade of Rs. 475-850 vide Government order No. 74-TSM of 1977 dated 17.10.1977, was entitled to be placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. the date of Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20.07.1983 and his seniority as also the consequential benefits were to be fixed accordingly. The respondent to reinforce his claim relied upon Judgment rendered in SWP No. 664/1995, whereby proviso to Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 was struck down, Division Bench Judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 203/2001, whereby the respondent was declared entitled to the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. 20.08.1983 and last of all the similar benefit given to his junior — respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. The writ Court accepted all the pleas taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and as stated allowed the petition in terms of Judgment dated 06.05.2011. 3. The writ Court Judgment is questioned by the appellants on the grounds that, as the respondent was not placed in the pay scale of Assistant Director of Tourism i.e. Rs. 520-900 on the date Government order No. 1235-GAD of 1983 came into force but as Tourist Officer in a pay scale of Rs. 475- 850, he was not entitled to be placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 in terms of the aforesaid Government order. The Government order No. 1258-GAD of 1983, according to the appellants merely embodied the resolve/policy of the Government to have a uniform pay scale of Rs. 475- 850, he was not entitled to be placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 in terms of the aforesaid Government order. The Government order No. 1258-GAD of 1983, according to the appellants merely embodied the resolve/policy of the Government to have a uniform pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 in the 15 Gazetted services including the Jammu and Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) Service and the policy was to take effect from the date respective Departmental Service Rules were recast, modified suitably in accordance with the aforesaid Government, order. The Jammu and Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) Service Rules were revised vide SRO 225 dated 23.09.1992. The post, held by the respondent as the Tourist Officer on 20.08.1983 not being feeding post for induction into Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS), it is pleaded seniority as Tourist Officer cannot determine the respondent's seniority in the KAS cadre. According to the appellants, the respondent's placement in the grade of Assistant Director Tourism — a feeding post for induction into KAS was determinative of his seniority in Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS) Cadre and was duly noticed while granting the benefit of induction into the Service, to respondent w.e.f 23.09.1997. 4. It is further urged that as the respondent was as Assistant Director Tourism, promoted vice order No. 109-TSM of 1997 dated 08.08.1997, nationally w.e.f. 29.05.1984 i.e. the day from which the post of Assistant Director fell vacant, the respondent could not be placed in the said grade w.e.f. 28.08.1983. It is pleaded that the respondent though a member of Jammu and Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) service held a post that carried a lower pay scale and could not be therefore, equated with pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 as the position in respect of Gazetted posts below the rank of Rs. 1000-1560, in terms of proviso remained unaffected by the State Government Order. 5. 1000-1560 as the position in respect of Gazetted posts below the rank of Rs. 1000-1560, in terms of proviso remained unaffected by the State Government Order. 5. It is further urged that the benefit given to the respondent No. 4 is justified by the appellants on the ground that respondent No. 4 was appointed as District Employment Officer in 1981 and the post held by him was declared equal to the post of Deputy Collector w.e.f. 20.08.1983, vide Government order No. 409-GAD of 1998 dated 31.03.1998 and subsequently upgraded vide Government order No. 624-GAD of 1993 dated 23.07.1993 unlike the post held by the respondent on 20.08.1983, which was neither upgraded vide Government order No 624-GAD of 1993 elated 23.07.1993 nor declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector w.e.f. 28.08.1983. 6. The writ Court Judgment, according to the appellants is not in tune with the Judgments rendered by the Division Bench in the cases involving interpretation of Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983. 7. We have gone through the appeal as well as the writ record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. To better understand the rival stands taken by the parties an over view of the service profile of the respondents would be helpful. 9. The writ petitioner/respondent was appointed as Tourist Officer in the grade of Rs. 475-850 vide Government Order No. 74/TSM of 1977 dated 17.10.1977 after he successfully appeared and made grade in competitive examination held by Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission. He on his appointment became a member of Jammu & Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) Service regulated by Jammu & Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) Service Rules of 1970 notified vide SRO No. 349 dated 20.7.1970. 10. The post of Assistant Director Tourism in the grade of Rs. 520-900, next higher to the post of Tourist Officer against which the writ petitioner/respondent was appointed under rules of 1970, was a promotion post to be filled up by a Tourist Officer having three years service as such. The Rules of 1970 were replaced by Jammu & Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) Service Rules 1970 notified vide SRO No. 405 dated 15.07.1998. However, the position of Tourist Officer and Assistant Director Tourism remained unchanged. The Tourist Officer continued to be a Gazetted post filled up by direct recruitment and Assistant Director a promotion post filled up by promotion from the cadre of Tourist Officers. 11. However, the position of Tourist Officer and Assistant Director Tourism remained unchanged. The Tourist Officer continued to be a Gazetted post filled up by direct recruitment and Assistant Director a promotion post filled up by promotion from the cadre of Tourist Officers. 11. The State Government came up with Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20.8.1983. The Government to introduce desired degree of efficiency and mobility in the administrative service and to avoid stagnation at different levels, decided to bring 15 Gazetted services including Jammu & Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) Service at par having a uniform time scale of Rs. 1000-1560. In terms of proviso to the order the existing position as regards the pay scales in said Government services below the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560, was to continue without any change, in respective services. 12. The policy decision taken by the Government and reflected in Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20.8.1983 was to take effect after the service rules of the aforesaid 15 Gazetted services were revised and brought in tune with the said Government order. The Jammu & Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1978 were revised vide SRO No. 225 dated 23.9.1992 and in terms of revised rules, the direct recruitment to the Jammu & Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) service was to take place at the level of the Assistant Director Tourism. The rules earmarked 50% of the posts for direct recruitment and 50% to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Tourist Officers. The post of Tourist officer was made 100% promotional. 13. The pay scale of the Tourist Officer under Jammu & Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) Service Rules 1978, notified vide SRO No. 405 dated 15.7.1978, was lower than the pay scale contemplated by Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20.8.1983. The pay scale mentioned in the aforesaid Government order was relatable to the post of Assistant Director and not to that of Tourist Officer. It was, thus, the post of Assistant Director from J&K Tourism (Gazetted) Service that was to be placed in the uniform pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 and not the post of Tourist Officer that was in a lower grade of Rs. 475-850. The respondent therefore was not placed in the pay scale of Rs. It was, thus, the post of Assistant Director from J&K Tourism (Gazetted) Service that was to be placed in the uniform pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 and not the post of Tourist Officer that was in a lower grade of Rs. 475-850. The respondent therefore was not placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f 20.8.1983 i.e the date Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 came into force even on the date the rules were vide SRO 225 revised to bring them in conformity with the aforesaid Government order. However, the writ petitioner/respondent was vide Government order No. 109-TSM of 1997 dated 8.8.1997 adjusted as Assistant Director Tourism w.e.f 29.5.1984. i.e the date when the post of Assistant Director was available to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Tourist Officers. The State Government vide government order No. 110-TSM of 1997 dated 11.8.1997 issued a final seniority list wherein the writ petitioner/respondent was shown at Sr. No. 4. The writ petitioner/respondent was inducted in Kashmir Administrative Service vide Government order No. 1532-G AD of 1997 dated 23.09.1997. In the final seniority list of KAS issued vide Government Order No. 90-GAD of 1999 dated 22nd Jan. 1999 the respondent (writ petitioner) figured at S.No. 128, while as the respondent No. 4 was shown at S.No. 223. The respondent (writ petitioner) was granted KAS Selection Grade vide order No. 1079-GAD of 2002 dated 28th June, 2002. The appellants/respondents 1 to 3 after litigation resorted to by the respondent 4 placed the respondent No. 4 at S.No. 44-B i.e. in between S.No. 44-A and 45. The respondent/writ petitioner aggrieved that the respondent No. 4, though junior to the respondent (writ petitioner) and far below in the seniority list of 1999, was granted benefit and placed at S. No. 44-B under Government order No. 862-GAD of 2001 and similar benefit was not granted to the respondent, filed writ petition No. 967/2004 and sought his placement in the uniform pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 with effect from 20.08.1983 and his placement in the seniority list between S.No. 44 and 45 at appropriate place, and grant of KAS Selection Grade, with effect from 25.11.1999. 14. From the above overview of the service career of the respondent/writ petitioner, it emerges that main thrust of his case is on his placement in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 with effect from 20th August, 1983. 14. From the above overview of the service career of the respondent/writ petitioner, it emerges that main thrust of his case is on his placement in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 with effect from 20th August, 1983. The placement in the said pay scale in view of the writ petitioner/respondent is likely to bring him other benefits like his induction in Kashmir Administrative Service from the date prior to one on which he was inducted and grant of KAS selection grade from 25th November, 1999 instead of 28th June, 2002. 15. The pleadings before writ court raised following important issues:- (1) Whether the respondent/writ petitioner was competent to lay claim to his placement in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560, twenty years after such right, by his own showing had come his way. In other words did the writ petition suffer from inordinate, inexplicable delay and latches? (2) Had the petitioner right to be placed in the uniform pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 in wake of Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20.08.1983 with effect from the date of the order? (3) Was Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20.08.1983 a mere statement of shift in Government Policy without any rights accruing therefrom, in favour of the members of 15 Gazettes services brought within its sweep, to claim the pay scale contemplated under the Policy? (4) What importance was to be attached to para B(vi) of Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20.08.1983, where-under "the Departmental Service Rules and KAS Rules were to be recast and modified suitably by every Service in the light of the order"? (5) What was the net effect of proviso to para-A(ii) on the officers of 15 services holding Gazetted posts below the rank of Rs. 1000-1560? (6) Whether the respondent/writ petitioner was similarly placed and circumstanced as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition and entitled to the same benefit as was extended to the respondent No. 4? 16. (5) What was the net effect of proviso to para-A(ii) on the officers of 15 services holding Gazetted posts below the rank of Rs. 1000-1560? (6) Whether the respondent/writ petitioner was similarly placed and circumstanced as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition and entitled to the same benefit as was extended to the respondent No. 4? 16. The writ court instead of dealing with the issues thrown up by the pleadings and making any discussion on the issues, relied upon observations of the Letters Patent Bench in LPA No. 203 of 2001 titled Amar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2004 (2) JKJ HC-157 (DB) in which the respondent/writ petitioner was arrayed as respondent No. 10, to conclude that the respondent/writ petitioner was entitled to his placement in the uniform pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 with effect from 28.08.1983. The writ court summed up its conclusions in the following words:- "...(In) view of the observations and finding of the court in LPA No. 203 of 2001, there is no option but to grant the said grade in favour of the petitioner with effect from 20.08.1983 i.e. date from which the Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 came into force. The fact that respondent No. 4 was junior to the present petitioner is also not in dispute. The grade benefit has been granted in favour of the said respondent admittedly on the directions of the Court. The petitioner being senior to the said respondent was therefore, entitled to the same treatment as has been accorded to the said respondent by the official respondents". 17. The question that arises for consideration is whether the LPA Court in LPA 203/2001 tilled Amar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2004 (2) JKJ HC-157 (DB) finally determined the rights of the respondent (writ petitioner) as regards his claim for placement in the grade of 1000-1560 with effect from 20.08.1983, so as to lead the writ court to conclude that the respondent/writ petitioner's rights have been determined and there was no option but to rely on finding returned in LPA 203/2001. 18. The LPA No. 203/2001 arose out of a writ petition filed by Shri Amar Singh registered as SWP 325/1996-colleague of the respondent/writ petitioner in which he questioned the respondent/writ petitioner's adjustment/promotion as Assistant Director vide Government order No. 109-TSM of 1997 dated 08.08.1997 with effect from 29.05.1984. 18. The LPA No. 203/2001 arose out of a writ petition filed by Shri Amar Singh registered as SWP 325/1996-colleague of the respondent/writ petitioner in which he questioned the respondent/writ petitioner's adjustment/promotion as Assistant Director vide Government order No. 109-TSM of 1997 dated 08.08.1997 with effect from 29.05.1984. The writ petition was clubbed with SWP No's. 430/1993, 1215/1995 325/1996 and 392/1998 and disposed of, vide order dated 31st May, 2001, with the direction to the State Government to determine the issues raised in the writ petitions. Shri Amar Singh — petitioner in SWP 323/1996 questioned the writ court order dated 31.05.2001, in LPA (sw) 203/2001. Shri Amar Singh in the Letters Patent Appeal reiterated the stand that the present respondent (respondent No. 10 in LPA 203/2001) was not entitled to be promoted/adjusted as Assistant Director with effect from 29.05.1984. The LPA court while repelling the stand taken by Shri Amar Singh, made following two observations:- (i) That the respondent No. 10 in the appeal (present respondent) as a consequence of judgment rendered in writ petition No. 664/1995, whereby proviso to Government order 1285-GAD of 1983 was held not sustainable, like other appointees to the Tourism Gazetted Service, was entitled to be placed in the pay scale of 1000-1560 with effect from 20.08.2003. (ii) That independent of the entitlement of respondent No. 10 to be placed in the said pay scale with effect from 20.08.2003 respondent No. 10 was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Director — to be filled up 100% by promotion under the Recruitment Rules, with effect from 17.10.1980 i.e. three years after his appointment as Tourist Officer. 19. However, the LPA Court after making of observations dismissed the appeal, and upheld the respondent's promotion/adjustment as Assistant Director with effect from 29.05.1984 vide Government Order No. 109-TSM of 1997 dated 08.08.1997. 20. It is pertinent to point out that the issue of adjustment of present respondent in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 with effect from 20.08.1983, in terms of Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 1983, was not in issue either in the writ petition filed by Shri Amar Singh (SWP No. 325/1996) nor in LPA 203 of 2001 arising there-from. It was no body's case before the writ court or the LPA Court not even the respondent/writ petitioner that he was entitled to be placed in the aforesaid grade with effect from 20.08.1983. It was no body's case before the writ court or the LPA Court not even the respondent/writ petitioner that he was entitled to be placed in the aforesaid grade with effect from 20.08.1983. In the circumstances the observation made by the LPA court in LPA 203/2001 while repelling Shri Amar Singh's challenge to the promotion/adjustment of the present respondent/writ petitioner as Assistant Director with effect from 29.05.1984, cannot be held as one determining the rights of the respondent, but a mere observation that falls within the realm of an obiter. It was in the nature of a reminder to Shri Amar Singh that what was given to the present respondent/writ petitioner was less than what would have gone to him and therefore his challenge was unsustainable. The observation made cannot be held to have determined the rights of the respondent so as to prompt the writ court to avoid the discussion on the issues raised in the respondent/writ petitioner's writ petition (SWP 967 of 2004) and allow the writ petition exclusively on the basis of observations made by the LPA Court. In case the observation made by the LPA Court is taken to be one determining the respondent's right to placement in pay scale of 1000-1560, why should not be same treatment given to the second observation made by the LPA court as regards respondent's rights to be promoted a Assistant Director, under the Recruitment Rules occupying the field, in the year 1980, giving much more benefit to the respondent as compared to what has come his way. 21. From, the above discusses it emerges that the observation made by the LPA court was in nature of an obiter and did not determine the respondent's right to be placed in the pay scale of 1000-1560 with effect from 20.08.1983. The writ court therefore, was not justified in allowing the respondent/writ petitioner's writ petition exclusively on the basis of observations, so made. This becomes further clear from the following observations of writ court:- (i) Thus the appointment of respondent No. 10 as Assistant Director with effect from 19.05.1984 can not to be said to be impermissible, illegal or contrary to Rules. This becomes further clear from the following observations of writ court:- (i) Thus the appointment of respondent No. 10 as Assistant Director with effect from 19.05.1984 can not to be said to be impermissible, illegal or contrary to Rules. (ii) In view of the findings that the appointment of respondent No. 10 with effect from 29.05.1984 is legal and valid, the seniority of the members of service will automatically be determined on the basis of their entry to a particular class, category and grade. Rule 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, prescribe the mode of determination of seniority. (iii) In view of the clear position of the rule, respondent No. 10 having been allowed the entry into the category of Assistant Director with effect from 29.05.1984 has to rank senior to the petitioner/appellant, who entered the said category on 18.06.1984. The impugned seniority list circulated vide Government order No. 110 of 1997 dated 11.08.1997 is strictly in accordance with the law and cannot be interfered with. (iv) On the same analogy grant of Selection grade to respondent No. 10 vide Government Order No. 21-TSM/93 dated 29.01.1993 also cannot be faulted with. 22. The writ Court after returning the above clear findings cannot be said to have contradicted itself by declaring the respondent/writ petitioner entitled to be placed in pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 w.e.f. 20.08.1983. The observation obviously was made to justify promotion/adjustment of respondent/writ petitioner as Assistant Director w.e.f. 29.05.1984, question by his colleague Shri Amar Singh. 23. Having concluded that the writ Court without making a discussion on merits of the case projected by the respondent in OWP No. 967 of 2004 allowed his writ petition on the basis of observations made by the LPA Court in LPA No. 203/2004, that for the reasons discussed did not determine respondent No. 1's rights, one of the courses open to this court is to remand the matter to the writ Court with a request to rehear it and thereafter, dispose it of in accordance with law. However, as the grievance set out in the writ petition relates to the year 1983 and the parties have been litigating the matter in one or other form for last more than a decade, it would be appropriate to examine the matter on its merits and finally dispose it off, so as to save the parties hassle of picking the threads from the date the litigation started. We, against the said backdrop, propose to examine the claim projected by the respondent in the background of the stand taken by the appellants, on its merits. 24. This takes us to the merits of the respondent's claim before the writ court. The cause projected by the respondent in SWP 967/2004 was available to him in the year 1983. However, the respondent/writ petitioner did not choose to put forth his claim. A fresh case arose when Shri Amar Singh was appointed as Tourist Officer vide Government Order No. 1053-GAD of 1984 dated 18th June, 1984 in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560, though under Jammu and Kashmir Tourism Gazetted Service Rules, of 1998 the Tourist Officer continued to carry the pay scale of 475-850 (unrevised). The respondent again remained silent. This was followed by Government Order No. 657-G AD of 1986 dated 22.10.1986 whereby two posts of Additional Tourist Officers were created in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560. The State Government realizing that the post of Tourist Officer under existing rules (Rules of 1978), provided for a pay scale of 475-850 for the post of Tourist Officer and Shri Amar Singh and his colleague Shri Adil Jan were appointed in the pay scale of 1000-1560, issued Government order No. 625-GAD of 1993 dated 23.07.1993 declaring Shri Amar Singh and his colleague to have been appointed as Assistant Directors Tourism in the pay scale of 1000-1560 from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 18th June, 1984. These developments provided a cause to the respondent to voice his grievance. But respondent/writ petitioner did not show any response. Though the respondent/writ petitioner filed a writ petition registered as SWP 392/1998. However, the grievance set out was not that he had been illegally denied placement in the pay scale of Rs. These developments provided a cause to the respondent to voice his grievance. But respondent/writ petitioner did not show any response. Though the respondent/writ petitioner filed a writ petition registered as SWP 392/1998. However, the grievance set out was not that he had been illegally denied placement in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 in terms of Government Order dated 20.08.1983 with effect from the date of order on the grounds available to him including that after proviso to Government Order No. 1285 of 1983 was struck down in SWP 664/1995, the respondent and all other Tourist Officers were entitled to such placement. The respondent instead pleaded that he though having cleared Combined Civil Service Examination with his colleagues in other services, was placed in a lower grade (475-850) while as his colleagues in other services were given the higher grade. The respondent's claim was opposed by the official respondents on the grounds that the respondent had not cleared all compulsory subjects in the said examination and therefore was placed against the post of Tourist Officer carrying a lower pay scale while his other colleagues mentioned in the petition had cleared all Compulsory subjects and were placed against higher posts carrying higher pay scales. The respondent/writ petitioner thus failed to project the claim set out in SWP No. 967/2009, in his earlier petition SWP No. 392/1998. He did not put forth his claim in reply to Amar Singh's Writ petition No. 325/1996. Be that as it may, the respondent opted to sleep over the matter for more than 20 years though the period was marked by the developments that should have been taken by the respondent as wake up calls and prompted him to agitate his case. The respondent by sleeping over the matter for such a long time has lost his right to invoke writ jurisdiction of the court. The writ petition badly suffers from delay and laches and was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. The writ court placing exclusive focus on the observation made in the LPA 203 of 2001 did not take notice of this vital aspect of the case going deep into the roots. 25. The law on the subject is well settled and finds expression in "Union of India v. A. Duriaj AIR 2011 SC 1084 ". The writ court placing exclusive focus on the observation made in the LPA 203 of 2001 did not take notice of this vital aspect of the case going deep into the roots. 25. The law on the subject is well settled and finds expression in "Union of India v. A. Duriaj AIR 2011 SC 1084 ". It would be appropriate to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court:- 13. It is well settled that anyone who feels aggrieved by non-promotion or non-selection should approach the Court/Tribunal as early as possible. If a person having a justifiable grievance allows the matter to become stale and approaches the Court/Tribunal belatedly, grant of any relief on the basis of such belated, application would lead to serious administrative complications to the employer and difficulties to the other employees as it will upset the settled position regarding seniority and promotions which has been granted to others over the years. Further, where a claim is raised beyond a decade or two from the date of cause disadvantage to effectively contest or counter the claim, as the officers who dealt with the matter and/or the relevant records relating to the matter may no longer be available. Therefore, even if no period of limitation is prescribed, any belated challenge would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 26. Independent of inordinate, inexplicable delay and laches on part of the respondent/writ petitioner in approaching the writ court, his claim for placement in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 cannot also succeed on merits. The respondent lays claim to his placement in the grade of 1000-1560 with effect from 20 08.1983, unmindful of the fact that the Government Order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 as laid down in "Zaffar-Ullah Bhat v. State of J&K & others 2006 (i) SLJ 333:2005 (Supp.) JKJ HC-443 (DB)". only communicated the Policy decision of the Government to rationalize the pay scales of various feeding services to KAS and to make them eligible for induction in the service. The Policy decision got teeth and became enforceable only when the respective Recruitment Rules, of 15 Services brought within the sweep of the Policy decision were amended to bring these Rules, in conformity with the Government Order No. 1285 -GAD of 1983 dated 20.08.1983. The Policy decision got teeth and became enforceable only when the respective Recruitment Rules, of 15 Services brought within the sweep of the Policy decision were amended to bring these Rules, in conformity with the Government Order No. 1285 -GAD of 1983 dated 20.08.1983. In case of Jammu and Kashmir Tourism Gazetted Service, the Recruitment Rules, were amended in the year 1992. The Amended Rules, notified vide SRO 225 dated 23rd September, 1992 made the Assistant Director Tourism as feeding post for KAS and not the post of Tourist Officer held by the respondent. The respondent therefore, could neither seek his placement in the pay scale of 1000-1560 with effect from 20.08.1983 nor induction in Kashmir Administrative Service on the basis of the post held by him. Even if the respondent's plea that Government order No. 1285-GAD of 1983, in light of the Writ Court judgment in SWP No. 664/1995 was applicable to all the members of Tourism Gazetted Service and other 14 Gazetted Service still the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 would not be available to the respondent with effect from 20.08.1983, for the reason that such grade would come his way only after the Recruitment Rules, were amended vide SRO 225 of 1992 dated 23rd September, 1992. It is important to note that even S/Shri Amar Singh and his colleague Adil Jan appointed as Tourist Officer, though placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 were subsequently declared to have been appointed as Assistant Directors Tourism, to justify their placement in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560, The only option available to the respondent was to seek his promotion to the post of Assistant Director as that would entitle him to the placement in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 and also open up avenue for his induction in to KAS. It has been already noticed that in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1978 the post of Assistant Director was to be filled up 100% by promotion from amongst the Tourist Officers like respondent, in the grade of 475-850 who had put in three years service as such. Though the respondent was eligible for promotion on 17th September, 1980, yet promotion evaded him because of non-availability of the post. Though the respondent was eligible for promotion on 17th September, 1980, yet promotion evaded him because of non-availability of the post. The post of Assistant Director Tourism fell vacant on 29th May, 1984 and as observed by LPA court in LPA 203/2001, the respondent was rightly promoted against the slot with effect from the said date. We may recall that the respondent's promotion/adjustment as Assistant Director with effect from 29th May, 1984 was unsuccessfully questioned by Shri Amar Singh — appellant in LPA 203/2001. The respondent's claim to placement in pay scale of 1000-1560 with effect from 20.08.1983 is, therefore, devoid of substance even on merits. 27. The respondent's claim for parity with the respondent No. 4 is also without any basis. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as District Employment Officer, in the year 1981 in the pay scale of 475-850, governed by Jammu and Kashmir Employment (Gazetted) Service Rules. The State Government vide Government Order No. 624 of 1993 dated 23.07.1993 upgraded Gazetted posts in five services including Jammu and Kashmir Employment Gazette Service to the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560. The posts so upgraded were Assistant Director Food and Supplies, Block Development Officer, Assistant Labour Commissioner, District Employment Officer. The Jammu and Kashmir Tourism (Gazetted) Service did not find Place in said order. The respondent No. 4, therefore, got edge over the respondent/writ petitioner, though appointed as District Employment Officer four years after the respondent. The State Government came out with yet another Government order No. 409-GAD of. 1998 dated 31.03.1998 for the purpose of seniority in Indian Administrative Service (IAS). As regards the Jammu and Kashmir Tourism Gazetted Service, the post of Assistant Director/Tourism Monitoring Organizer, was declared equivalent to the Deputy Collector, whereas, in case of Jammu and Kashmir Employment (Gazetted) Service such equivalence was given to the post of District Employment Officer. The post of Tourist Officer held by respondent was neither upgraded in terms of Government Order No. 624 of 1993 dated 23.07.1993, nor declared equivalent to the post of District Collector in terms of order dated 31.03.1998. The respondent No. 4 was inducted into J&K Administrative Service vide Government Order No. 1532-GAD of 1997 dated 23.09.1997 placed in the pay scale of Rs. The respondent No. 4 was inducted into J&K Administrative Service vide Government Order No. 1532-GAD of 1997 dated 23.09.1997 placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 vide Government order No. 80-GAD of 2004 dated 20.01.2004 and on the basis of grading awarded to him by the Selection Committee at the time of his induction in to KAS, he vide order No. 862-GAD of 2001 dated 01.08.2001 was placed at S.No.44-A, in the, seniority list. The change in his placement was made only alter an opportunity was provided to all the affected officers to file their objections. The case of the respondent/writ petitioner therefore, is markedly different from the case of respondent No. 4 to whom a number of benefits came under Government Orders mentioned hereinabove without any objection from the respondent/writ petitioner. The respondent/writ petitioner, therefore, had no cause to insist on equivalence or similar treatment as given to the respondent No. 4. 28. The writ petition filed by the respondent, was for the reasons discussed, liable to be dismissed on its merits, in dependant of laches, that rendered it non-maintainable. 29. For the reasons discussed, we find merit in this appeal. The appeal in hand is accordingly allowed and writ court judgment dated 06.05.2011 in SWP No. 967/2004 set aside. 30. The writ petition resultantly fails and is accordingly dismissed.