JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This writ petition is filed praying to quash order dated 09.05.2002 insofar as it shows the date of appointment of the petitioner from 09.05.2002 instead of the date of joining in pursuance of order No. 239/1999 dated 11.10.1999 with a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner appointed in pursuance of order No. 239/1999 dated 11.10.1999 instead of order dated 09.05.2002 It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to release all consequential benefits from 11.10.1999 till 09.02.2002 in the shape of salary and other service benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected and appointed as follower/cook by order No. 239/1999 dated 11.10.1999 and he joined the duty in pursuance of the said order. He performed his duties for more than 15 days. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 did not allow the petitioner to perform his duties by raising objection with regard to his age. It is further stated that age relaxation has been duly considered by the Recruitment Board, but respondent No. 3 did not allow the petitioner to perform his duty. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed SWP No. 2615/1999 which was allowed by this Court on 31.07.2001 and respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to perform his duty in pursuance of order No. 239/1999 dated 11.10.1999 The respondents preferred LPA No. 346/2001 against the said order which was dismissed on 07.03.2002 The order having not been implemented, the petitioner filed contempt petition No. 114/2001 wherein respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to perform his duty and in pursuance of the said directions, the petitioner was allowed to perform his duty from 09.02.2002 The petitioner made a representation to the respondents that the benefits of service be given to him in pursuance of order No. 239/1999 with a prayer that he be allowed to draw salary from 1999 as there was no fault on his part not to perform the duties. No orders having been passed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. In the objections filed by the respondents, it is stated that three years relaxation does not help the petitioner for covering prescribed age limit which became a cause to disallow the petitioner to join the service at the relevant point of time. 4. No orders having been passed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. In the objections filed by the respondents, it is stated that three years relaxation does not help the petitioner for covering prescribed age limit which became a cause to disallow the petitioner to join the service at the relevant point of time. 4. The issue as to whether a person can claim seniority as per the select list even if he was given appointment order belatedly due to no fault of the candidate was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 3238 (Sanjay Dhar v. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission). The three Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court answered the said issue specifically in paragraphs 9 and 16, which reads thus:- “9. ……….the issue raised by him survives for adjudication as the appellant has been wrongfully denied appointment in the year 1995 pursuant to the 1992-1993 selections and if in spite of his having been selected, the appointment was wrongfully withheld then the relief sought for by him ought not to be denied to him and if the appellant be found entitled to appointment in the year 1995 then his seniority in the cadre of Munsif should be calculated from the date with which other incumbents figuring in the select list, in which the appellant also figured, were appointed. We find merit in this submission. 16. ……………. It is directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed along with other appointees under the appointment order dated 6.3.1995 and assigned a place of seniority consistently with his placement in the order of merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and later forwarded to the Law Department. During the course of hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant made a statement at the Bar that the appellant was interested only in having his seniority reckoned notionally in terms of this order and was not claiming any monetary benefit by way of emoluments for the period for which he would have served in case he would have been appointed by order dated 6.3.1995 We record that statement and direct that the appellant shall be entitled only to the benefit of notional seniority (and not monetary benefits) being given to him by implementing this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The contesting respondents shall pay the appellant costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.” 5. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1997 SC 250 (Pilla Sitaram Patrudu v. Union of India). 6. In the light of the judgments cited supra and the fact that the petitioner was allowed to join in the year 1999 and not allowed to report for duty subsequently till 09.02.2002, the claim of the petitioner is justified and the period of service cannot be denied to him. The petitioner is, however, not entitled to salary for the aforesaid period as he has not worked. The respondents are directed to give service benefits to the petitioner from the date of his appointment with all other benefits including seniority etc. except salary. The salary was not ordered taking note of the earlier orders passed in the petitioner's case where no direction is given to pay back-wages. The necessary order is directed to be passed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Writ petition is allowed. No costs.