JUDGMENT : Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dtd.20.01.2026, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner produced copy of the application filed by the State before the Tribunal on 10.11.1997, which was registered as R.P. No.102 of 1997 in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. B. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit the petition, issue notice to the Opp. parties to show cause as to why the petition shall not be allowed; And after hearing the Counsel for the parties allow the petition with cost; And issue appropriate nature of writ quashing the order under Annexure-8. And issue appropriate nature of writ directing that the petitioner’s service as Surveyor be deemed to be from 27.11.78 and that he is entitled to all service and financial benefits w.e.f. 27.11.78; And issue appropriate nature of writ directing the Opposite parties to pay all financial and service benefits on the basis of the petitioner’s service to be counted as Surveyor with effect from 27.11.1978 and accordingly the differential pay and pension and all financial benefit as applicable be paid to him within a specified time; And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner vide office order dtd.21.11.1978 under Annexure-1 was appointed on ad hoc basis to officiate as an Amin, however, against the post of Surveyor. In terms of the said order Petitioner joined in his post on 27.11.1978. 5.1. It is contended that one Dinabandhu Barik along with others were appointed as Amins, but against the post of Surveyor vide order dtd.21.03.1979. However, the said Dinabandhu Barik & Ors. approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 408 of 1989 with a prayer that they should be appointed as Surveyor and be paid with the salary as applicable to the post of Surveyor from the date of their initial appointment as Amin. 5.2. However, the said Dinabandhu Barik & Ors. approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 408 of 1989 with a prayer that they should be appointed as Surveyor and be paid with the salary as applicable to the post of Surveyor from the date of their initial appointment as Amin. 5.2. It is contended that the said Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dtd.14.02.1992 inter alia with the following order:- "The most vital document in favour of the petitioner is Annexure-4 wherein while refusing to give any special pay the Government have ordered:- 'Government have been further pleased to decide that the Amins who have been trained to contour survey and working as Surveyors may be appointed as Surveyors and allowed the scale of pay fixed for Surveyors, as they are supported to do the work of Surveyors as qualified Surveyors.’ We feel this Government order clinches the issues. Firstly, the petitioner from the beginning was working as Surveyor because he was originally appointed against the sanctioned post of Surveyor and doing the work. Secondly, the Government directed that they be appointed as Surveyors instead of Amins. As admitted in Annexure-3, a letter from the Director of Agriculture addressed to the Secretary to Government against 96 posts of Surveyors sanctioned by the Government there are 27 Surveyors in position further makes it clear that 26 Surveyors is now working as Amins and their works have been found to be satisfactory. In view of the fact that there is a clear Government direction to appoint them as Surveyors and there are vacancies for the posts of Surveyors and they are working as Surveyors and have been trained as such, there seems to be no reason to extract work from them as Surveyors without appointing them to the post. We have no hesitation in directing that the petitioner be appointed as Surveyor. We direct further that the period the petitioner worked as Surveyor as per order dt.9.3.79 as is evident from Annexure-1 until they are regularly appointed as Surveyors they should be paid the salary and allowances as admissible for Surveyors on their initial appointment. After their regular appointment they would come into the scale of surveyors. The petition is allowed. No costs." 5.3. It is contended that order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 408 of 1989 was implemented by the State-Opp. After their regular appointment they would come into the scale of surveyors. The petition is allowed. No costs." 5.3. It is contended that order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 408 of 1989 was implemented by the State-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.12.05.1992 under Annexure-2. Applicants in the said O.A. including Dinabandhu Barik were allowed to work as Surveyor w.e.f.22.04.1992. However, the arrear claim w.e.f.1980 was not released seeking approval of the Finance Department. 5.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 02.11.1993 in M.P. No. 1821 of 1993, arising out of O.A. NO. 408 of 1989, the applicants in the said O.A. were extended with the financial benefit from their initial date of appointment. 5.5. It is contended that pursuant to such order passed by the Tribunal on 02.11.1993, applicants therein were extended with the financial benefits w.e.f.08.06.1979 i.e. from the date, they were allowed to work as Surveyor. Order dtd.02.11.1993 reads as follows:- “A letter from the Commissioner addressed to the Government Advocate is shown to us to-day, wherein orders have been passed on 29.9.93 to the following effect: 'In pursuance to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No.408/89, Government in Agriculture Deptt, letter dated 23.6.93 has appointed the petitioner as Surveyor in the scale of pay of Rs.300-440/- with effect from 8.6.1979 i.e. the date from which he was allowed to work as Surveyor after returning from Surveyor Training, Direction has also been issued to take immediate steps for making payment of the differential amount for the past period as per the judgment of the Tribunal.’ In view of the aforesaid letter we finally direct for payment of the differential amount which has not been paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 5.6. It is contended that following the order passed in O.A. No. 408 of 1989, another set of similarly situated Amins working as against the post of Surveyor also moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1784 of 1992. The said Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dtd.28.10.1992. Order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1784 of 1992 was also implemented by the Govt.. The said Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dtd.28.10.1992. Order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1784 of 1992 was also implemented by the Govt.. The aforesaid fact reflected in letter dtd.04.02.2009, reads as follows:- "I am directed to invite a reference to this Department letter No.2651 dt.11.6.2007 and your office letter No.324 dt.7.7.2007, No.326 dt.7.7.2007 and No.334 dt.7.7.2007 on the above captioned subject (i.e. O.A. No.1784/92) and to say that, as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble O.A.T. in the aforesaid case, Sri R.K. Mohapatra and two others be appointed as Surveyors and paid the salary admissible and other entitlements applicable to that post if they are covered by the judgment referred to in Annexure-5 (copy enclosed) where in 74 Amins have been allowed by the Agriculture Department vide their order No.16352/AG dt. 12.5.1992 to work as Surveyors. Hence, Sri R.K. Mohapatra and 2 others are entitled to get the arrear claims for the period from 12/78 to 5/95 as per the calculation received from your office vide letter No.246 dt.25.4.2006 and letter No.2328 dt.22.7.2006 of Executive Engineer (Agriculture, C.A.D. Division, Bhubaneswar). You are therefore instructed to take necessary steps for drawal of the arrear claims and payments to Sri Sadangi, Surveyor and to Sri Panda, Surveyor of your office without any further delay. The copy of the judgment enclosed for reference." 5.7. It is contended that since Petitioner is senior to the applicants in both O.A. Nos.408 of 1989 as well as 1784 of 1992, he also moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1074(C) of 1997 claiming similar benefit of his appointment as a Surveyor with release of his salary as due and admissible to the post of Surveyor from his initial date of appointment i.e.27.11.1978. The Tribunal vide order dtd.07.04.1997 under Annexure-3, while holding that juniors to the Petitioner have been given appointment as Surveyor in preference to the Petitioner, directed the Opp. Parties to appoint the Petitioner as a Surveyor and to pay his salary and other entitlement as applicable to the post of Surveyor. The Tribunal vide order dtd.07.04.1997 under Annexure-3, while holding that juniors to the Petitioner have been given appointment as Surveyor in preference to the Petitioner, directed the Opp. Parties to appoint the Petitioner as a Surveyor and to pay his salary and other entitlement as applicable to the post of Surveyor. Order passed by the Tribunal on 07.04.1997 reads as follows:- “This is as regards to the prayer of the applicant to appoint the applicant as Surveyor with pay admissible to the post of Surveyor and allowances and to direct the Respondents to pay arrear salary and allowances from 27.11.1978, within a stipulated period for ancillary reliefs. 2. The case of the applicant, in short, is that the applicant having passed Matric and Amin training course and having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he was selected on the basis of the interview as Amin, but he was posted against the post of Surveyor in the establishment of Command Area Development as per the order dated 21.11.1978 under Annexure-1. The final gradation list dated 29.6.1988 vide Annexure-2 was prepared on the basis of the merit list and the name of the applicant finds place at serial No.45 in the gradation list. The post of Surveyor is a higher. post carrying higher scale of pay than the Amin. The applicant was paid Amin scale of pay instead of Surveyor scale. One Dinabandhu Barik who is junior to the applicant filed 0.A.408/1989 claiming scale of pay admissible to the post of Surveyor and the Tribunal by the judgment dated 14.2.1992 directed the Respondents to appoint him as Surveyor and to pay surveyor salary and allowances It is stated in the application that by the order dated 12.5.1992 vide Annexure-4 the said judgment was implemented and the benefit was extended to 74 other Amins. The grievance of the applicant is that though he is placed similarly with that of the applicant in 0.A.408/1989 and some of the juniors to the applicant in the gradation list had been given. benefit by the order of the Tribunal, he is also entitled as a matter of right to get the post of Surveyor and the pay prescribed for the post. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel. benefit by the order of the Tribunal, he is also entitled as a matter of right to get the post of Surveyor and the pay prescribed for the post. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel. During course of argument it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present case E the applicant is squarely covered by the two judgments rendered by this Tribunal in 0.A. 408/1989 and 0.A.1784/1992. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in pursuance of the order in 0.A.1784/1992 directing appointment of Amins as Surveyors, three Amins were given appointment as Surveyors in the scale of pay admissible to the post which is evident from Annexure-7, Similarly, in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal in ?.?.408/1989, 73 Amins were appointed as Surveyors in the scale of pay admissible to the post by the order dated 8.11.1993 under Annexure-5. If implementation of the orders of the Tribunal as mentioned in Annexures-5 and 7 is taken into consideration, it prima facie shows that his juniors as referred in the gradation list under Annexure-2 have been given appointment as Surveyors in preference to the applicant. It is the sound proposition of law that merely because some persons have gone to the court and got relief, the person who has not come to the court should not be denied the relief if he is similarly placed with other persons who are the immediate beneficiaries by the judgment of the Court or Tribunal. 4. In view of what is stated in the application and in consideration of the documents and the orders rendered by this Tribunal stated supra, I would dispose of the application with the direction that the applicant be appointed as a Surveyor and paid salary and other entitlements applicable to the post, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Respondents are at liberty to seek modification of the order if they find that the order is unimplementable. Send copies to the parties with copies of paper book to 0.Ps.” 5.8. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though orders passed in O.A. Nos. The Respondents are at liberty to seek modification of the order if they find that the order is unimplementable. Send copies to the parties with copies of paper book to 0.Ps.” 5.8. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though orders passed in O.A. Nos. 408 of 1989 as well as 1784 of 1992 were implemented by the State, not only by appointing the applicants therein as against the post of Surveyor with release of the benefits from their initial date of appointment, but similar order passed in the case of the Petitioner under Annexure-3, was never implemented and instead State filed R.P. No. 102 of 1997 before the Tribunal on 10.11.1997 seeking modification of order dtd.07.04.1997. 5.9. On the ground of pendency of such a Review Petition in R.P. No. 102 of 1997, order passed on 10.11.1997 was never implemented. However, the said Review Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dtd.23.11.2010 under Annexure-10. After dismissal of the Review Petition vide order dtd.23.11.2010, Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Surveyor vide office order dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4 and his initial pay was fixed w.e.f.08.03.2015. 5.10. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after being so appointed vide order dtd.07.02.2015, Petitioner raised a claim under Annexure-5 series with a prayer to extend similar benefit as has been extended in favour of the applicants in O.A. No. 408 of 1989. Order passed by the Director under annexure-6 was also relied on by the Petitioner showing appointment of the applicants in O.A. No. 408 of 1989 as against the post of Surveyor w.e.f. their initial date of appointment. Such claim of the Petitioner when was not considered and in the meantime he also attained the age of superannuation w.e.f.30.04.2017, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30707 of 2021, with a prayer to direct the Opp. Parties to treat the Petitioner as a Surveyor w.e.f.27.11.1978 and to release all service and financial benefits as due and admissible. 5.11. This Court vide order dtd.25.10.2021 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, Opp. Party No. 1 without proper appreciation of the claim of the Petitioner, rejected the same vide the impugned order dtd.29.12.2022 under Annexure-8. 5.12. Parties to treat the Petitioner as a Surveyor w.e.f.27.11.1978 and to release all service and financial benefits as due and admissible. 5.11. This Court vide order dtd.25.10.2021 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, Opp. Party No. 1 without proper appreciation of the claim of the Petitioner, rejected the same vide the impugned order dtd.29.12.2022 under Annexure-8. 5.12. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since persons similarly situated and appointed as Amin on ad hoc basis as against the post of Surveyor, subsequent to the appointment of the Petitioner, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 408 of 1989 were not only appointed as against the post of Surveyor, but also they were released with all service and financial benefits from their initial date of appointment, and similar order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1784 of 1992 was also implemented by extending similar benefit, on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3, Petitioner was not extended with similar benefit, on the ground of pendency of a Review Petition in R.P. No. 102 of 1997. 5.13. The Review Petition though was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dtd.23.11.2010, but Petitioner was appointed as a Surveyor only vide office order dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4 and while continuing as such, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017. It is however fairly contended that, on such retirement of the Petitioner, he has been extended with all retiral benefits including pension. 5.14. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that since persons similarly situated and juniors to the Petitioner pursuant to similar order passed by the Tribunal were not only appointed as against the post of Surveyor on regular basis from their initial date of appointment and were also extended with the service and financial benefits from such initial date of appointment, but Petitioner being similarly situated and more suitable than the applicants in O.A. No. 408 of 1989, could not get the benefit of similar order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3 on 07.04.1997, till he got the same vide order dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4. It is accordingly contended that since persons similarly situated pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, were extended with the benefit of appointment as well as release of all service and financial benefits from their initial date of appointment, rejection of the claim of the Petitioner vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5.15. It is contended that since Petitioner is similarly situated, he should have been extended with all service and financial benefits from his initial date of appointment i.e.27.11.1978 pursuant to order under Annexure-3. But without proper appreciation of such claim of the Petitioner, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-8, which requires interference of this Court. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 347 & State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747 . 5.16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 22 and 23 of the judgment in the case of the Aravind Kumar Srivastava has held as follows:- “ 22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under. 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence. 23. Viewed from this angle, in the present case, we find that the selection process took place in the year 1986. Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated 22-6-1987. The respondents before us did not challenge these cancellation orders till the year 1996 i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the cancellation of their appointments. Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated 22-6-1987. The respondents before us did not challenge these cancellation orders till the year 1996 i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the year 1996 only after finding that some other persons whose appointment orders were also cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years had passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief to the parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight that these respondents have not joined service nor working like the employees who succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance of cancellation orders. Therefore, not only was there unexplained delay and laches in filing the claim petition after a period of 9 years, it would be totally unjust to direct the appellants to give them appointment as of today i.e. after a period of 27 years when most of these respondents would be almost 50 years of age or above.” 5.17. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 29 of the judgment in the case of C. Lalitha has held as follows:- “ 29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to.” 6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 4. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 4. It is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal on 07.04.1997 under Annexure-3, was not implemented as State filed Review Petition No. 102 of 1997 seeking review of the said order. The Review Petition was ultimately dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dtd.23.11.2010 under Annexure-10. After such dismissal of the Review Petition, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of appointment as against the post of Surveyor vide order dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4. 6.1. It is contended that Petitioner without any objection, accepted the benefit of order dtd.07.02.2015 and after accepting such benefit, he raised his claim to extend the benefit from his initial date of appointment i.e.27.11.1978 pursuant to Annexure-1. It is contended that since Petitioner without any objection, accepted the offer given to him vide office order dtd.07.02.2015, claim made by the Petitioner to release all service and financial benefits from his initial date of appointment after due consideration has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as an ad-hoc Amin against the post of Surveyor vide order dtd.21.11.1978 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined on 27.11.1978. However, it is found that persons similarly situated and appointed as ad hoc Amin against regular post of Surveyor in the year 1978-79, moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 408 of 1989 seeking appointment as against the post of Surveyor from their initial date of appointment. Such claim of the applicants in O.A. No. 408 of 1989 when was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dtd.14.02.1992, applicants therein were appointed as against the post of Surveyor vide order dtd.12.05.1992 under Annexure-2. They were also extended with the financial benefits pursuant to the further order passed by the Tribunal on 02.11.1993 in M.P. No. 1821 of 1993. 7.1. It is also found from the record that similar order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1784 of 1992 on 28.10.1992 was also implemented by the State so reflected vide letter dtd.04.02.2009 of the Govt. in the Department of Water Resources. 7.1. It is also found from the record that similar order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1784 of 1992 on 28.10.1992 was also implemented by the State so reflected vide letter dtd.04.02.2009 of the Govt. in the Department of Water Resources. However, it is found that similar order passed by the Tribunal in the case of the of the Petitioner on 07.04.1997 in O.A. No. 1074 of 1997 under Annexure-3, was not implemented on the ground of pendency of a Review Petition so filed in R.P. No. 102 of 1997. 7.2. The said Review Petition filed by the State was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dtd.23.11.2010 under Annexure-10. After dismissal of the Review Petition, order passed by the Tribunal on 07.04.1997 was implemented by appointing the Petitioner as against the post of Surveyor vide office order dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4. After such appointment of the Petitioner as against the post of Surveyor, Petitioner attained the age of superannuation and was allowed to take retirement w.e.f.30.04.2017 vide order under Annexure-7. 7.3. This Court taking into account the benefit extended in favour of the applicants who are similarly situated in O.A. Nos. 408 of 1989 and 1784 of 1992, is of the view that Petitioner is also eligible and entitled to get similar benefits, as has been extended in favour of the such similarly situated applicants pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal. 7.4. Since order passed by the Tribunal on 07.04.1997 was never implemented because of pendency of the Review, which was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution and after dismissal of the Review Petition, Petitioner was regularly appointed vide order dtd.07.02.2015 under Annexure-4, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all service and financial benefits as against the post of Surveyor from the date of his initial appointment i.e.27.11.1978, till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017. 7.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.29.12.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure- 8. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to extend all service and financial benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner from his initial date of appointment as against the post of Surveyor vide order under Annexure-1 dtd.21.11.1978, with his date of joining as 27.11.1978. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure- 8. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to extend all service and financial benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner from his initial date of appointment as against the post of Surveyor vide order under Annexure-1 dtd.21.11.1978, with his date of joining as 27.11.1978. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to release all the entitlements by making due calculation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.