IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration Application No. 976 of 2010 In Writ Petition No. 317 (S/B) of 2003 Sunil Chandola and others. …..…Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …...…Respondents. Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate present for petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional CSC, for State of Uttarakhand. Judgment Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, CJ. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) We have considered the application for restoration and noting that the learned counsel for the petitioners, by mistake, did not mark the matter on his list and accordingly, could not make himself present in the court, when the matter was called for hearing, we allow the application for restoration and recall the order dismissing the writ petition. 2. With consent of the parties, we have heard the writ petition on its merit. By Rules, made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State Government merged Data Entry Operators, working in the Trade Tax Department, with Clerks of the Trade Tax Department. Petitioners, who are Clerks, 2 are not aggrieved by the merger itself. They are however, aggrieved by Rule 5 contained in the Merger Rules which, amongst others, states that seniority of the merged Data Entry Operators shall be counted from the date of their initial appointment as Data Entry Operator. It is the contention of petitioners that by reason thereof some of the Data Entry Operators, who joined as Data Entry Operator before petitioners were appointed as Clerks, would become senior to them and accordingly petitioners’ scope of being promoted would be affected. That appears to be the principal reason for filing the present writ petition. Rule 5 of the said Rules protects the interest of merged Data Entry Operators. Though by challenging the said Rule, petitioners are seeking to take away such benefit from Data Entry Operators, they deliberately did not make Data Entry Operators as parties to the writ petition. On that ground alone, writ petition is liable to be and should be dismissed with exemplary costs holding that writ petition is malafide. That apart, it is settled law that a Government employee is entitled to all benefits of the service rendered by him from the date he starts serving the Government. In the event, perforce, his cadre is changed, service benefits accrued in his favour upto then cannot be curtailed. One of the services benefits of an employee is his seniority. In that view of the matter, if a Government Employee is shifted from one cadre to the other, perforce, by the Government, it is obligatory on the part of the Government to preserve his seniority. If by reason of discharge of such 3 obligation, the scope of future promotion of existing employees in the cadre is affected, the same cannot be questioned by them. 3. For the reasons as above, the writ petition is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 22.11.2010 SKS