1. Petitioner, a retired Section Officer of the High Court, has filed the present writ petition questioning and seeking reversal of the Order bearing No. 659 dated 17th August, 2017, for short impugned order, whereby his claim of seeking fixation of his seniority from the date of his appointment in the subordinate judiciary and consequent release of benefits in his favour has been rejected. The petitioner, further seeks a command in the name of respondent to fix his seniority after taking into account his past service rendered in the Subordinate Judiciary as has been done in the similarly placed cases and release the benefits flowing therefrom in his favour. The petitioner has further sought damages/ compensation of rupees Ten Lacs for the loss, inconvenience and mental agony suffered by him due to the inaction of respondent. The petitioner has further prayed that after settling the claim, his case be forwarded to the Accountant General’s office for re-fixation of his pension, gratuity and other benefits.

2. The prayers supra are inter alia made on the ground that the conclusion drawn by the respondent in terms of the impugned order is misconceived and the transfer of petitioner from the subordinate judicial service to the High Court at his own request as reflected in the impugned order is illusory; the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent in terms of order dated 19.04.2017 passed in SWP no. 672/2017 on the analogy of the similarly situated persons which has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner; no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order; the petitioner has been singled out when it comes to the parity and petitioner thus has been prejudiced on that count too; the petitioner cannot be treated as a separate class when the issue stands judicially determined and the respondent cannot disregard the service rendered by the petitioner previously as the same would amount to denial of his fundamental right to service benefits; on the principles of equality before law the petitioner is entitled to seniority and service benefits which are made admissible to the similarly placed persons; etcetera.

3. Upon notice respondents appeared and sought time to file objections initially. However, later on in terms of order dated 12.12.2018, Mr R. A. Jan, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent, submitted that reply in the matter is not needed as the issue involved in the writ petition is purely legal, therefore, can be argued in absence of the reply.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. A brief re-look at the events leading to the filing of the instant petition is desirable, thus:—

6. The petitioner has been appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Subordinate Judiciary on 5th December, 1985, in terms of the High Court Order No. 585 dated 05.12.1985 and subsequently transferred to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on 17th July, 1993. The petitioner claims fixation of his seniority from the date of his appointment in the subordinate judiciary as has been done in the cases of Mian Rafiq and Rashid Munim pursuant to the judgment dated 26.5.2011 delivered in SWP no. 3437/1997, by virtue of which the High Court had been directed to reckon their seniority with effect from the date of their appointment in the subordinate judiciary.

7. The petitioner is stated to have filed many representations to the respondent for extending him the similar treatment, but the same has not been done, constraining him to file a writ petition, SWP no. 672/2017, which has been disposed of in terms of order dated 19th April, 2017, by directing the Registrar General, High Court of J&K, to examine and settle the claim made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date a copy the order is made available to the Registrar General.

8. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected in terms of orde