Per Yaqoob, J. 1. The case has its chequered history, litigative process for last more than three decades is yet to get terminated. 2. Respondent-writ petitioner has all along been claiming, i.e, first, seniority shall reckon from the date of his first appointment, i.e., 25th June, 1982 when he was appointed as Block Development Officer (BDO) and second, he was entitled to induction into Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS) with effect from the year 1987, i.e., the date his juniors Mr. Khalid Hussain and Mr. P.N. Ganjoo were inducted, instead of year 1997. 3. The stand of the appellants is that seniority of the respondent-writ petitioner has to reckon with effect from 24th December, 1991, i.e., (i) the date when his services were regularized vide Government Order No. 877-Agri of 1991 dated 24.12.1991; and (ii) the post of BDO against which petitioner was appointed carried the pay scale of Rs. 875-1400 till the year 1993, so could not be regularized in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 (Old) with effect from the date of his initial appointment. 4. Learned Single Judge, while noticing precisely all the facts and features, has allowed the writ petition SWP No. 1366/2005 vide judgment dated 11.03.2011. Operative part of the judgment is quoted herein:- "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 No. 707-GAD dated 18.06.1999 and 862-GAD of 2011 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 Services 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. P. N. Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain and thereafter extend all benefits to the petitioner available in consequence of refixation of his seniority and determination of date of induction into Kashmir Administrative Service. P. N. Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain and thereafter extend all benefits to the petitioner available in consequence of refixation 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." 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, two appeals, one by the State and another by one Parvez Ahmad Malik, as referred to in the title, have been filed. 6. The precise flashback of the facts leading to the long drawn litigative process shall be advantageous to be noticed for effectual adjudication of the issues, as raised. 7. Respondent-writ petitioner along with two others was appointed as BDO temporarily on probation for two years vide Government Order No. 563-Agri of 1982 dated 25th June, 1982 in the grade of Rs. 875-1400. Treating the said order de hors the procedure, writ petitioner was terminated vide Government Order No. 806 dated 08.09.1982. It gave rise to the litigative process from the year 1982 itself. As the said order of termination was challenged by medium of SWP No. 470 of 1982. The petition was allowed and the order of termination was quashed. Subsequent thereto, vide Government Order No. 877-Agri of 1991 dated 24.12.1991, appointment of respondent-writ petitioner was regularized in pursuance of the Government Order No. 563-Agri of 1982 dated 25.06.1982. 8. Again, the respondent-writ petitioner filed another writ petition, SWP No. 1519/1998 which was allowed vide judgment dated 27th September, 1991 with a direction that the petitioner shall be placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 from the date of his substantive appointment and with a further direction that the seniority list in CD & NES Department shall be issued indicating the place of each officer in the cadre of the petitioner from the date of respective substantive appointment. Consequential benefits were also directed to be given to the writ petitioner as per seniority. 9. As against the said judgment dated 27.09.1991. LPA no. 66/1992 was dismissed on 4.4.2003 and thereafter Special Leave Petition No. SLP (Civil) No. 10660/2003 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 14.7.2003. 10. Consequential benefits were also directed to be given to the writ petitioner as per seniority. 9. As against the said judgment dated 27.09.1991. LPA no. 66/1992 was dismissed on 4.4.2003 and thereafter Special Leave Petition No. SLP (Civil) No. 10660/2003 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 14.7.2003. 10. When judgment dated 27.9.1991 was not implemented, Contempt Petition No. 359/1993 was filed. During the pendency thereof, Government Order No. 49-Agri of 1994 dated 29.11.1994 was issued whereunder post of BDO held by the petitioner was upgraded from Rs. 875-1400 to Rs. 1000-1560 with effect from 25th June, 1982 and the petitioner was placed in the said grade till 23.7.1993. Thereafter, uniform pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 was provided for all categories of BDOs. Furthermore, writ petitioner was posted as District Panchayat Officer vide Government Order No. 280-Agri of 1995 dated 30th June, 1995. 11. This way, the first direction issued vide judgment dated 27th September, 1991 was complied with. The second issue regarding issuance of seniority list in CD & NES Department and the grant of consequential benefits to the petitioner as per seniority remained to be complied with. 12. Vide Government order No. 486-Agri of 1995 dated 16.10.1995, fresh seniority as it stood on 1.10.1995 was circulated for information in which petitioner was shown to be at S. No. 76. Then final seniority list was issued on 9.4.1996. The said seniority list was challenged by medium of SWP No. 1606-7/1997 by various aggrieved persons. During the pendency of the writ petition, for determination of various representations, the Government constituted a Committee vide Government Order No. 623-Agri of 1996 dated 31.12.1996. In the light of the report of the Committee, the said seniority list was rescinded vide Government Order No. 219-Agri of 1998 dated 5.5.1998. 15 persons named in Annexure-A to that order were in the grade of DPOs whereas in Annexure-B to the said order, petitioner was shown at S. No. 18. So 15 officers mentioned in Annexure-A were shown senior to him. Date of appointment of the petitioner was shown as 25th June, 1982 whereas the date of appointment of said 15 officers was shown as 30th June, 1982. Despite that, the said 15 officers were shown senior in the final seniority list dated 15.5.1998. All the said 15 officers were promoted much later to petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560. Date of appointment of the petitioner was shown as 25th June, 1982 whereas the date of appointment of said 15 officers was shown as 30th June, 1982. Despite that, the said 15 officers were shown senior in the final seniority list dated 15.5.1998. All the said 15 officers were promoted much later to petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560. This way, the direction contained in judgment dated 27.9.1991 was allegedly violated which gave rise to filing of yet another writ petition, i.e., SWP No. 1366/2005. Judgment dated 11.03.2011 disposing of the said writ petition is now impugned in these appeals. 13. It is contended that the writ petitioner was inducted into KAS in terms of Government Order No. 707-GAD of 1999 dated 18.06.1999 which position has not been challenged till 2001. The inordinate delay was projected as a ground for dismissal of the writ petition but the same has not been addressed. 14. The contention has to be rejected because in view of the facts and circumstances, same plea, if not dealt with, in effect is rejected. In order to make it more clear, the writ petitioner has been contesting all along and he was pursuing the contempt proceedings for implementation of judgment dated 27th September 1991. The said contempt petition has been disposed of on 8.7.2005 wherein petitioner had been directed to challenge the seniority position fixed by the respondents, as a result thereof, filing of the writ petition in the year 2005, is not hit by latches. 15. Next, it is contended that the claim of respondent-writ petitioner for his induction into KAS with effect from 1987 is not permissible in terms of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 1979. The writ petitioner was not eligible as he did not hold the cadre post before reference date. i. e., 18.10.1988, as envisaged by Rule 3 (7) of the aforesaid Rules. This submission is without substance because for all practical purposes, appointment of the writ petitioner was on substantive basis with effect from 25th June, 1982 which position has not been disturbed but instead has been affirmed in the judgment dated 27.9.1991, which has assumed finality, so is not open to question. 16. Next, it is contended that reckoning the date of placement of respondent-writ petitioner in the grade of Rs. 16. Next, it is contended that reckoning the date of placement of respondent-writ petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 (old) from 25.06.1982 and as a follow up thereto, determining his date of induction into KAS having due regard to the induction into KAS of his juniors including Mr. P. N.Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain is not consistent with the law because the said two persons were holding cadre posts of KAS, i.e., before the cut off date 18.10.1988 and were declared as initial recruits of KAS in terms of Government order No. 895-GAD of 1991 dated 18.9.1991 and Government Order No. 678 dated 13.08.1993. The position of said Sh. P.N. Ganjoo and Khalid Hussain being junior to the writ petitioner is not denied and the position of the writ petitioner of having been appointed as BDO on 25th June, 1982 is not also open to question. To say that he was not holding the cadre post is a figment because for all practical purposes, he was holding the cadre post. Writ petitioner both in view of the order No. 1285-GAD of 1983 dated 20.8.1983 and order No. 567-GD of 1986 dated 20.10.1986 was required to be placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560. Same position stands settled by the judgment dated 27.9.1991 rendered in SWP No. 1519/1988 which is not now open to question. 17. Vide Government Order No. 567-GD of 1986 dated 20.10.1986, 24 posts of Additional BDOs were created which were placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 (old). When it is so, how can a full-fledged BDO be said to be not holding the cadre post as having been placed in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 (old). It is this position which has been taken note of in the judgment dated 27.9.1991. It shall be relevant to quote the following portion from the judgment dated 27.9.1991 rendered in SWP No. 1519/1988 which has assumed finality:- ".....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. It shall be relevant to quote the following portion from the judgment dated 27.9.1991 rendered in SWP No. 1519/1988 which has assumed finality:- ".....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 notionally will count against regular vacancy and his seniority also will count from the date of his first appointment, against the post of BDO in accordance with Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956....." It shall be relevant to quote, as has been quoted by the learned Single judge in the judgment impugned as to what has been observed in the judgment rendered in SWP No. 1519/ 1998:- ".....Again not rebutted by the respondent that in the year 1986, 24 additional BDOs 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 be kept in a lower grade i.e. Rs. 875-1400 only. The respondents have not reconciled this disparity of pay between the BDO and Additional BDO, nor can this type of situation 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....." 18. In the aforesaid situation, contention, as raised, is found to be without merit. 19. Next, contention of the learned counsel is that during the pendency of the writ petition, various eligible officers from various feeding services have been assigned seniority, based on which, have been inducted into KAS, the relief granted by the Single Judge will result in unsettling the settled position in administrative hierarchy, as such, will create chaos and will give rise to multiple litigation. 20. The apprehension of disturbance in hierarchy shall not stand an impediment in the lawful rights of the writ petitioner who has been litigating for over three decades for a genuine cause. 20. The apprehension of disturbance in hierarchy shall not stand an impediment in the lawful rights of the writ petitioner who has been litigating for over three decades for a genuine cause. To grant relief in accordance with law based on proper factual foundation is not a favour which at the discretion can be declined. It is a right guaranteed which cannot be snatched unless in due course of law. Therefore, such submission cannot prevail so as to disentitle a rightful person of a right which is vested in him. 21. It is next contended that the relief which was not granted while disposing of writ petition SWP No. 1366/2005 and also in the writ Petition SWP No. 1519/1998, same could not be granted by the learned Single Judge. 22. The contention is totally without any basis. Position of the writ petitioner having been appointed with effect from 25.06.1982 stand concluded by earlier round of litigation, there is no scope for interference. The said relief has been specifically granted by the judgment dated 27.9.1991, i.e., when the appointment of writ petitioner in the grade of Rs. 1000-1560 from the date of his substantive appointment has been granted, seniority has to be linked with the first date of appointment. The contention is accordingly rejected. 23. It is next contended that the observation made in the judgment rendered in the case of Zafarullah Bhat and ors. v. State and ors dated 11.8.2005 disposing of LPA No. 144 of 1998 could not form the basis for grant of relief. This contention too is without any substance because the observations made in the said judgment pertained to the writ petitioner, same has been quoted in the judgment impugned. The benefit as was granted to Abdul Majid Wani-writ petitioner was not granted to appellants therein by observing as under:- "....Mr. margay 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.." 24. 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.." 24. Reference to the case of State of J&K v. Farooq Ahmad Renzo and anr is of no help to the appellants because the present case has its own peculiar, facts and features and it is in that backdrop of its own facts and features, law has to be applied. 25. In the judgment impugned, it has been observed that juniors of the writ petitioner irrespective of the seniority position have been promoted and inducted into KAS, the writ petitioner has been agitating all along. By now, those junior promotees must have retired, so it shall not be possible to determine the exact dates, the petitioner was entitled for promotion to the next higher post and inducted into KAS. Such an exercise is required to be considered by the appellants. 26. Viewed thus, no ground has been carved out for taking the view different to one taken by the learned Single Judge. Judgment impugned as such is up-held. Both the appeals dismissed.