JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioners who have been serving as Bench Secretaries Grade II in the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and performing their duties to the said post, have filed this writ petition praying for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari striking down the mention of cancellation of select list of 1979 by means of the order dated August 24, 1984 passed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court and declaring that the same was null and void and that the petitioners are entitled to seniority over all the Bench Secretaries Grade II Selected and appointed in pursuance of the selection held in 1984? A writ in the nature of mandamus was also prayed for declaring, that the conditional unwillingness and request for scoring out of the name by the petitioners be treated as ab initio null and void and the petitioners be treated as seniors and entitled to all pay, allowances and increments retrospectively i.e. with effect from the dates of posting of their next juniors as Bench Secretaries, Grade II, in pursuance of the selection held in 1979 and arrears of pay and allowances of the petitioners be paid to them within a specified period. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that although they are working as Bench Secretaries with effect from November 4. 1986 and October 1, 1986 respectively and their work and conduct has although been appreciated by the Hon'ble Judges with whom they had been working but are not being paid their salary in the scale of pay of Bench Secretaries, Grade II. in the establishment of the High Court even though they are duly, qualified and selected candidates and are senior in service to all the Bench Secretaries selected and appointed in 1984 in spite o f the fact that their length of service as Bench Secretaries, Grade II, started from before the commencement of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. 3. It was averred that on the one hand, the persons who failed to qualify at the competitive examination were subsequently given the benefit, the petitioners who were duly selected and seniors to certain persons have been ignored continuously from being accorded due seniority over their juniors. 4. 3. It was averred that on the one hand, the persons who failed to qualify at the competitive examination were subsequently given the benefit, the petitioners who were duly selected and seniors to certain persons have been ignored continuously from being accorded due seniority over their juniors. 4. It was further averred that the employees of the Lucknow Bench establishment of the High Court who were duly selected, were compelled during the times of their adverse family circumstances and ailments to give in writing, their unwillingness to join as Bench Secretaries, Grade II, at Allahabad, knowingly that the time being unfavourable to them they would be compelled to request for deletion of their names from the approved list of Bench Secretaries, Grade II, while on the other hand Sri R.S. Awasthi on his superannuation on 30-9-86, Sarva Sri Jagdish Prasad, Om Prakash Verma and K.K. Banerji, who were on the approved list of the Bench Secretaries, Grade II, in pursuance of their selection, were not asked to join the post at Lucknow and were kept in reserve for being given convenient posting at Allahabad. Two of such persons, namely, Sarva Sri Om Prakash Verma and K. K. Banerji, by means of the order dated August 21, 1987, were promoted to fill up the vacancy caused by Sri Hari Narain, Bench Secretary Grade II and by promotion of Sri Sant Kumar Singh as Bench Secretary, Grade I, were posted at Allahabad. The petitioner has averred that the step-motherly treatment as aforesaid meted out to the staff members of the Lucknow Bench, needs immediate attention of the High Court. 5. It was pointed out that in pursuance of the selection, a list of five temporary Bench Secretaries was drawn on 18-1-1974 in which the name of petitioner No. 1 was placed at Serial No. 5. Subsequently the said list of temporary/officiating Bench Secretaries was revised by means of the order dated 29-4-1977 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the names of Sarva Sri Ambika Narain, Kailash Nath, petitioner No. 2 R.R.D. Misra were included in the said list and the same was notified by the then Registrar by means of the order dated 30-4-1977. The petitioner No. 2 while serving as ad hoc/officiating Bench Secretary Grade II on the basis of the aforesaid selection also received salary of the Bench Secretary during the period 1977 to 1979. The petitioner No. 2 while serving as ad hoc/officiating Bench Secretary Grade II on the basis of the aforesaid selection also received salary of the Bench Secretary during the period 1977 to 1979. Later on a written test and interview for regular selection of Bench Secretaries Grade II was held and on 7-2-1979, the names of the petitioner were placed in the list of the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Bench Secretaries Grade II in the High Court and they were placed at serial Nos. 19 and 18 of the select list. But the opposite parties preferred to take the work from the petitioners in ad hoc/officiating capacity instead of appointing them regularly on the basis of the aforesaid selection. In the month of April, 1983 while petitioner No. 1 was ill he was pressed by the senior Bench Secretary Sri G.C. Sinha to work as Bench Secretary as a result of which on 15th April, 1983 petitioner No. 1 addressed a letter to the Registrar of this Court mentioning therein that the petitioner's health was not permitting him to work as Bench Secretary then and hence he did not want to serve as Bench Secretary in officiating capacity in leave vacancy and his name might be scored out from the approved list of the Bench Secretaries. Subsequently the Deputy Registrar of the High Court required the petitioners along with Sri A.C. Sinha to inform as to whether they were willing to work as Bench Secretaries Grade II at Allahabad in clear vacancy, which was likely to occur with effect from 1-8-1983. It was mentioned in that letter that in case they expressed their unwillingness the officials junior to them in the approved list of the Bench Secretaries would be promoted and treated as senior to them in terms of Explanation to Rule 35 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. The petitioner No. 2 intimated the Registrar his unwillingness to work as Bench Secretary on the ground of the prolonged illness of his old mother. In the said letter, the petitioner No. 2 indicated that he might be exempted from joining at Allahabad for three months. The petitioner No. 2 intimated the Registrar his unwillingness to work as Bench Secretary on the ground of the prolonged illness of his old mother. In the said letter, the petitioner No. 2 indicated that he might be exempted from joining at Allahabad for three months. Thereafter on 23-7-1983 the Registrar of the High Court addressed a letter to the Additional Registrar of the Lucknow Bench mentioning that in view of the Explanation to R. 35 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct Rules, 1976 the seniority of Sarva Sri R.R.D. Misra petitioner No. 2 and A.C. Sinha could not be maintained and the name of Sri Abdul Rauf, petitioner No. 1, had been scored out from the approved list of Bench Secretaries on his request. Later on by means of a D.O. letter No. 22-A/LR-22 dated 22-10-1983, petitioner No. 2 and Sri A.C. Sinha were required to give their willingness as to whether they were desirous to work as Bench Secretaries in the vacancies which was likely to occur with effect from 1-11-83 but as they expressed their unwillingness to join the same and one Sri K.K. Verma, mentioned at Serial No. 23 of the approved list of Bench Secretaries, was appointed to work as Bench Secretary Grade II with effect from 1-11-1983. Again by means of a D.O. letter No. 210/DR 1 E)/ 1984 dated January 18, 1984 the petitioner No. 2 as well as Sarva Sri A.C. Singh. S. N. Misra and Narain Prasad were required to report in writing if they were willing to join as Bench Secretaries Grade II at Allahabad but the petitioner No. 2 expressed his unwillingness to join at Allahabad. On 6th March, 1984, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Bench Secretary Grade II against one of the vacancies which occurred at Allahabad. The petitioner No. 2 sought exemption from joining at Allahabad at that time being due to his adverse family circumstances which were not permitting him to leave the station as a result of which one Sri S.N. Misra was appointed as Bench Secretary Grade II at Allahabad. The petitioner No. 2 sought exemption from joining at Allahabad at that time being due to his adverse family circumstances which were not permitting him to leave the station as a result of which one Sri S.N. Misra was appointed as Bench Secretary Grade II at Allahabad. On 18-10-1986, Deputy Registrar (A) of the High Court under the orders of Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench Lucknow deputed the petitioner No. 2 to work as Bench Secretary Grade II against the vacancy of Sri P.S. Awasthi (retired) and the names of petitioner No. 1 and Sri A.C. Sinha were kept in panel to work as Bench Secretary in the event of necessity. In view of the said order, the Additional Registrar of the Lucknow Bench passed similar orders on October 20, 1986. On 28-3-1987 the Additional Registrar, of the Lucknow Bench addressed a letter to the Registrar, High Court at Allahabad, mentioning therein that although the petitioner No. 2 had been working as Bench Secretary since October 20, 1986 he had not been paid the pay scale of Bench Secretaries and hence he requested the Registrar, High Court at Allahabad, to allow the opposite party No. 2 to officiate as Bench Secretary and to draw his pay in that scale and communicate the same to that Bench (Lucknow Bench) for necessary action. 6. In the counter affidavit it has been averred that the petitioners showed their inability to join as Bench Secretaries Grade II at Allahabad and hence their claim of seniority over the candidates of 1984 batch is without any basis. However, it was not disputed that the petitioners have been working in ad hoc/officiating capacity on the post of Bench Secretaries Grade II. 7. The attention of this Bench was drawn to the fact that the representations dated 13-1-1987 and 25-5-1987, preferred by the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 for bringing their names in the approved list of Bench Secretaries was considered and rejected under the orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice on 4-5-1988 and 9-5-1988 by means of letter No. 1022/Acctts (A-1) dated Allahabad May 9, 1988. The said decision was communicated by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Allahabad to the Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench. Lucknow. 8. The said decision was communicated by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Allahabad to the Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench. Lucknow. 8. Thereafter on June 21, 1989, the Additional Registrar of the High Court at Allahabad informed the Additional Registrar of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court that under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 23-5-1989 following Upper Division Assistants had been appointed as Officiating Bench Secretaries Grade II, with effect from the dates noted against their names. 1 Sri R.R.D. Misra 1-9-87 at Lucknow Bench 2 Sri V.S. Tiwari 6-11-87 at Allahabad 3 Sri Ram Deo II 22-2-88 at Allahabad 4 Sri K.C. Agrawal 11-3-88 at Allahabad 5 Sri B.P. Singh 5-4-88 at Allahabad 6 Sri K.N. Abdi 1-6-88 at Allahabad On 6-7-89. by means of letter No. 1178/Accounts (A-1) the Additional Registrar of the High Court at Allahabad informed the Additional Registrar, High Court Lucknow Bench. Lucknow that the petitioner No. 1 had been appointed as Officiating Bench Secretary Grade II with effect from July 1, 1989 at Lucknow Bench in the existing vacancy. It was further mentioned that his name in the seniority list of Bench Secretaries Grade I I had been placed below the name of Sri S.N. Pandey. 9. File regarding the appointment and selection of Bench Secretaries was also produced before us which indicated that on 17-10-1985 Sri Shakeel Siddiqui Deputy Registrar submitted a note to the Additional Registrar. Lucknow Bench that upon a perusal of the approved list of Bench Secretaries as a result of the test held in 1978-79 the names of Sarva Sri R.R.D. Misra, Abdul Rauf A.C. Sinha and Narain Prasad, Upper Division Clerks, figured in the approved seniority list at Serial Nos. 18, 19, 21 and 25 respectively. The two senior officials, Sarva Sri R.R.D. Misra and Abdul Rauf had given their willingness in writing to serve as Bench Secretaries. It was further mentioned that both of them were good workers having sizable experience and fine service record. They had also worked as Bench Secretaries for some time in the past. Sri Abdul Rauf had been working as Bench Secretary in the leave Vacancy of Sri Ambika Narain under the orders of the Additional Registrar. It was further mentioned that both of them were good workers having sizable experience and fine service record. They had also worked as Bench Secretaries for some time in the past. Sri Abdul Rauf had been working as Bench Secretary in the leave Vacancy of Sri Ambika Narain under the orders of the Additional Registrar. In the said note the Additional Registrar was requested to select official from the list of the panel given below to work as Bench Secretaries Grade II in the vacancy of Sri R.S. Awasthi. 1. Sri R.R.D. Misra, 2. Sri Abdul Rauf, 3. Sri A.G. Sinha, 4. Sri Narain Prasad. 10. It was further proposed that at least a panel of two officials might be made to work as Bench Secretaries in future where the need at Lucknow Bench at Allahabad at Allahabad at Allahabad at Allahabad at Allahabad arose for the same. Upon this note the Additional Registrar, on 17-10-1986 passed an order to the effect that Sri R.R.D. Misra be deputed to work against the vacancy of Sri R.S. Awasthi. Sarva Sri Abdul Rauf and A.C. Sinha be kept in panel. The registrar was informed accordingly. 11. The main question which arises for determination in this case is as to whether a senior man otherwise eligible for promotional post could be refused promotion on the ground that on an earlier occasion he had refused the promotion. 12. In the case of Gyan Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India, Writ Petn. No. 1403 of 1974, decided on 22.10.1975, Hon'ble K.B. Astana, Chief Justice (as he then was) indicated as under : "....Learend counsel even suggested that a Government servant has no right to refuse to go on a post of promotion. In fact in one of the counter affidavit it has been averred that if such a right were permitted to be exercised by Government servants it will create all sorts of administrative difficulties in smooth running of the department. But the learned counsel did not point out any such rule which expressly or impliedly deprives a Government servant of such a right. On the other hand, I find that the general practice in the Post of Telegraph Department has been to ask an employee before transfer place where he would like to be transferred. Besides my attention has been drawn to a communication dated 3rd October, 1962 from the Director General. On the other hand, I find that the general practice in the Post of Telegraph Department has been to ask an employee before transfer place where he would like to be transferred. Besides my attention has been drawn to a communication dated 3rd October, 1962 from the Director General. Post and Telegraph, New Delhi, to all the Head of Circle on the subject of promotion of officers in the approved list on their own request and determination of their seniority in case postponement is acceded to. This circular itself shows that the administrative practice is that an employee of the Post and Telegraph Department can on his own request forego to proceed on a promotion post at a station which is not of his liking or choice. The petitioner did nothing but followed this departmental practice which is based on a circular issued from the Director General, Post and Telegraphs, New Delhi. He simply says that he does not want to go on a promotion post to a station which he does not like and wants to continue in the substantive post of operator in the Lucknow District which according to the assertion of the petitioner is now a separate district and he having opted to serve in the Lucknow District, cannot be sent to any station falling outside Lucknow district." 13. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition was allowed and the Union of India as well as the P.M.G. U.P. Circle, Lucknow were directed to consider the matter raised by the petitioner in his representation and decide it according to declaration and option sought for and given by the petitioner in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the petitioner's service. 14. In the case of Dr. Saroj Ramesh v. State of Gujarat, (1984) 49 Fac LR 191, Gujarat, it was indicated : "The question and the only question that arises it, can a senior-man otherwise eligible for promotion post be refused proration on the ground that on an earlier occasion she had refused the promotion and she was warned, when there is no legal basis for the view that she will lose her seniority. A seniority is a valuable right. The Government simply by issuing a memorandum cannot tell any employee that simply because on some occasion in the post she had declined the promotion, she will lose her seniority. A seniority is a valuable right. The Government simply by issuing a memorandum cannot tell any employee that simply because on some occasion in the post she had declined the promotion, she will lose her seniority. There is nothing to prevent the Government from making a law or a service rule that an employee who declines to accept the offer of promotion shall forfeit that right to promotion either for that post or for certain duration. In the absence of any such rule, a right cannot be taken away and this is the only ground on which the case of the petitioner has not been considered. She is, therefore, entitled to be considered for the purpose of promotion when the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 came to be promoted." 15. In the case of Dr. N.C. Singhal v. Union of India, reported in (1980) 2 Serv LR 118 : 1980 Lab IC 710, Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated as under : "If an employee eligible for promotion is offered a higher post by way of promotion, his refusal to accept the same would enable the employer, the Central Government in this case, to fill in the post by offering it to a junior to the Government servant refusing to accept the post and in so acting there will be no violation of Article 16. Further, the Government servant who refused to accept the promotional post offered to him for his own reasons cannot then be heard to complain that he must be given promotional post from the date on which the avenue for promotion opened to him." "Incidentally it would be advantageous to take note of the fact at this stage that the appellant was promoted to supertime Grade II on July 17, 1978 and between February 1971 when he declined to accept promotion and July, 1978 when he was in fact promoted, no one junior to him in the speciality to which he belongs was ever promoted over-riding his claim to supertime Grade II. Therefore, if since his refusal to accept promotion at Simla appellant was never superseded by any one junior to him in his speciality it is difficult to entertain the contention that in refusing promotion to him when some posts were covered from unspecified specialists' post into different specialities and were filled in by those who were qualified to be promoted in the respective speciality in which the post was treated he could be said to have been superseded in violation of Article 16." 16. In the aforesaid case it was clearly laid down that the Government servant who refused to accept the promotional post for his own reason can not then be heard to complain that he must be given promotional post from the date on which the avenue of promotion opened to him (emphasis ours). This clearly means that a permanent embargo cannot be put against a person in respect of promotion if on a particular date he had refused to go on promotional post for certain reason. 17. It is pertenant to mention here that on 5th April, 1983 the petitioner No. 1 addressed a communication to the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court that at that particular time his health was not permitting him to work as Bench Secretary and as such he was no more interested to work as Bench Secretary Grade II on officiating or leave vacancy and he requested that his name might be scored out from the list of approved Bench Secretaries Grade II with immediate effect. This communication does not mean that for all times to come the petitioner was not willing to perform his duties as Bench Secretary. As far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, on 13-7-1983 he, by means of a letter, informed the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court that he was willing and ready to go to Allahabad to work as Bench Secretary Grade II but he expressed his inability to go there due to the prolonged ailment of his old and feable mother who was under the treatment of Dr. S.C. Misra of Lucknow Medical College and therefore he requested for exemption to join at Allahabad as Bench Secretary Grade II atleast for three months keeping his seniority intact. 18. S.C. Misra of Lucknow Medical College and therefore he requested for exemption to join at Allahabad as Bench Secretary Grade II atleast for three months keeping his seniority intact. 18. As a result of the disinclination of the petitioners to join their duties as Bench Secretaries at Allahabad, on 23-7-1983 the Deputy Registrar wrote a letter to the Additional Registrar of the Lucknow Bench that petitioner No. 2, and Sri A.C. Sinha, Upper Division Assistant might be informed that in view of the Explanation to Rule 35 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 1976 their seniority in the approved list of Bench Secretaries could not be kept intact. The letter also indicated that the name of petitioner No. 1 had been scored out from the approved list of Bench Secretaries Grade II on his own request. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that inspite of the fact that the representations dated 13-1-1987 and 25-5-1987 preferred by the petitioners Nos 1 and 2 respectively for bringing their names in the approved list of Bench Secretary is were rejected under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 4-5-1988 and 9-5-1988, Petitioner No. 2 had been deputed to work as Bench Secretary Grade II against the vacancy of Sri R.S. Awasthi (retired) and the name of petitioner No. 1 as well as of Sri A.C. Sinha were kept in panel to work as Bench Secretaries in the event of necessity. Ultimately on 6-7-1989, by means of the order No. 1178/Acctts (A-1), petitioner No. I was also appointed as officiating Bench Secretary Grade II with effect from 1-7-1989 at Lucknow Bench. 20. The main question for consideration before this Court is as to whether scoring out of the names of the petitioners from the select list may be said to have been waived or not? In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the various provisions of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules. 1976 (hereinafter called Rules). 21. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the various provisions of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules. 1976 (hereinafter called Rules). 21. Clause (e) of Rule 8 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 1976 provides that the selection of Bench Secretaries shall be made by selection through competitive examination to be conducted by the appointing authority open only to permanent Upper Division Assistants and permanent Lower Division Assistants having not less than ten years service on that post. Preference shall, however, be given to candidates possessing a Law Degree. 22. Rule 11, which deals with the method of selection to the post of Bench Secretaries reads as under : "(1) Whenever it is required to make selection to fill up any vacancy, vacancies in the post of Bench Secretary, the appointing authority shall invite applications from the eligible permanent Upper Division Assistants and L.D. As. for admission to the competitive examination. (2) The procedure and the syllabus relating to the competitive examination shall be such as may be prescribed by the appointing authority from time to time. (3) The rest of the procedure of selection and the period which the select list shall hold good shall be the same as laid down in Rule 10." 23. Clause (4) of Rule 10 provides as under : "10(4). The total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and interview will determine their position and the merit list shall be prepared accordingly. If two or more candidates secure equal marks, the candidate securing higher marks in the written examination will be placed above. The select list shall hold good for three years or till the next selection is held whichever is earlier." (Emphasis ours) Clause (1) of Rule 30 of the Rules reads as under : "(1) On the occurrence of substantive vacancies, the appointing authority shall make appointments to the various categories of posts in the establishment from the respective list of persons duly selected under these rules. Where a select list has been prepared, appointments shall be made in the same order in which the names appear in the list." Rule 35 which provides for seniority of persons already in service is reproduced below : "Seniority of persons appointed to a post in the establishment prior to the commencement of these rules shall be determined by the Chief Justice in accordance with these rules. Explanation List of officiating and temporary officials shall be drawn up for purpose of seniority on the basis of date of continuous officiation." 24. A perusal of a aforesaid Rules clearly indicates that the appointment of the Bench Secretaries could be made, after a competitive examination and interview, in accordance with the select list prepared on the basis of the said examination and interview. When the names of the petitioners were scored out from the said seniority list and their representations were also rejected, the appointments could be made only after going through the formalities as contained in Rules 10 and 11, but it seems that considering their good work and experience, the mistake of scoring out of their names from the select list was realised and they were appointed to work as Bench Secretaries. By means of the aforesaid order the appointment of the petitioners to officiate as Bench Secretaries in the existing vacancies, the earlier order No. 1746/Acctts (A-1) dated 23-7-1983 contained in Annexure 7, by means of which the name of the petitioner No. 1 from the approved list of Bench Secretaries Grade II, was scored out from the approved list of Bench Secretaries, may be said to be have been waived. 25. The petitioners were selected as Bench Secretaries Grade II in 1979 but they were not absorbed and thereafter another selection was held in the year 1984 and all the selected candidates, except the petitioners, have been absorbed. Even some of the candidates who called (sic) in the selection test of 1984 have also been approved. The petitioners. undoubtedly. have been working in ad hoc/officiating capacity or. the post of Bench Secretaries Grade II since 4-11-1986 and 1-10-1986 respectively and there appears no reason as to why the petitioners be not paid pay. allowances and the increments which are admissible to the Bench Secretaries Grade II on ad hoc/officiating basis, and also deserve to be absorbed as Bench Secretaries. 26. the post of Bench Secretaries Grade II since 4-11-1986 and 1-10-1986 respectively and there appears no reason as to why the petitioners be not paid pay. allowances and the increments which are admissible to the Bench Secretaries Grade II on ad hoc/officiating basis, and also deserve to be absorbed as Bench Secretaries. 26. As far as the question of their seniority over all the Bench Secretaries Grade II selected and appointed in pursuance of the selection held in 1984 is concerned, that question deserves to be determined by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in accordance with Rule 35 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 which provides as under : "Seniority of the persons appointed to a post in the establishment prior to the commencement of these rules shall be determined by the Chief Justice in accordance with these rules." Hence, we do not consider it necessary to decide the question of seniority of the petitioners over all the Bench Secretaries Grade II selected and appointed in pursuance of the selection held in 1984. The petitioners may approach the Hon'ble the Chief Justice within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order for appropriate orders in this regard. 27. In view of the fact that the petitioners have been serving as Bench Secretaries in stop-gap arrangements since 1983 and working on ad hoc/officiating basis since 1986 continuously and their work and conduct has been appreciated by their superior officers it is expected that Hon'ble the Chief Justice will decide the matter expeditiously. 28. In view of what we have indicated hereinabove, the writ petition is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the petitioners pay. allowances and increments admissible to Bench Secretaries of Grade II from 4-11-1986 and 1-10-1986 respectively from which date the petitioners have been continuously working as Bench Secretaries on ad hoc/officiating basis. 28. In view of what we have indicated hereinabove, the writ petition is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the petitioners pay. allowances and increments admissible to Bench Secretaries of Grade II from 4-11-1986 and 1-10-1986 respectively from which date the petitioners have been continuously working as Bench Secretaries on ad hoc/officiating basis. As far as the question as to whether they are entitled to seniority over all the Bench Secretaries Grade II selected and appointed in pursuance of selection held in 1084 is concerned, the same will be decided by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Rule 35 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 1976 in case the petitioners submit representation to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice within fifteen days from the date of this order as mentioned above. It is for them to make a request for passing appropriate orders at an early date. There will be no order as to costs.