Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a declaration that the petitioner is having seniority in the cadre of Legal Assistant Grade II with effect from 23-12-2003, ie., the date of effective advice for appointment to that cadre and that she is entitled to all service benefits on the basis of that seniority. Petitioner has also sought for a direction to respondents to promote her to the cadre of Legal Assistant Grade I before anyone of her juniors who was advised/appointed as Legal Assistant Grade II after 23-12-2003 is considered for promotion. 2. Petitioner had applied for leave without allowance vides leave application dated 14-12-2005 to join her spouse abroad. Application was considered by the Government in the light of GO (P).No.209/84/Fin. Dated 12-4-1984 and GO(P).No.76/86/Fin. Dated 17-1-1986 and accorded sanction for one year from 15-5-2005 to 14-5-2006 subject to the conditions laid down in the above mentioned Government orders. Petitioner after the expiry of the leave returned to India in February 2006 and submitted an application dated 2-3-2006 requesting permission to rejoin duty after canceling unavailed portion of the leave. Respondent as per its order dated 20.3.2006 cancelled the unavailed portion of leave without allowance from 15-3-2006 to 14-5-2006 and permitted her to rejoin duty in the Department. While the petitioner was on leave, respondent as per order dated 8-8-2005 had provisionally promoted 8 Legal Assistants Grad II as Legal Assistant Grade I. Among those persons who were promoted, three were juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Legal Assistant Grade II. Petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P8 representation requesting that she may be provisionally promoted as Legal Assistant, Grade I retaining her seniority over the juniors. 3. The respondent took up the stand that by availing leave without allowance she has forfeited the previous service and seniority and so she can be considered for promotion as Legal Assistant Grade I only after all those who were advised or appointed as Legal Assistant Grade II before 15-3-2006, the date on which she rejoined duty. Petitioner has approached this court for a declaration that she is entitled to seniority in the cadre of Legal Assistant Grade I with effect 23-12-2003 the date of effective advice for appointment and she be given due promotion considering her seniority. 4. Petitioner has approached this court for a declaration that she is entitled to seniority in the cadre of Legal Assistant Grade I with effect 23-12-2003 the date of effective advice for appointment and she be given due promotion considering her seniority. 4. Leaned single Judge found no reason to grant the relief prayed for holding the view that she cannot wriggle out of the conditions on which leave without allowance was sanctioned to her placing reliance on clause (5) of Appendix XII-C of Part-I Kerala Service Rules. Learned single Judge took the view that the officers who come within the purview of clause 5 will have to undergo full period of probation on return from leave and all service benefits that had accrued to them before proceeding on leave stands forfeited. Learned single Judge also referred to his earlier judgment in Sreekala v. State of Kerala, (2007 (1) KLT 903) and dismissed the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. K.G. Anil Babu submitted that seniority as per rule 27(c) of Part II, K.S. & S.S.R. is not a service benefit but a statutory right conferred on a Government servant and that such a right cannot be taken away by Appendix XII-C of Kerala Service Rules. Learned counsel also submitted that K.S.R. and K.S. & S.S.R. govern separate fields and cannot therefore be imported to take away seniority gained by an employee under rule 27(c) of Part II, K.S. & S.S.R. Learned counsel also submitted that interpretation of provision of Appendix XII-A is more rigorous than the provision in Appendix XII-C since the earlier provision was dealing with a person who has availed of leave without allowance for taking up employment abroad and the latter provision is dealing with a person who has taken leave without allowance for joining his spouse. Learned counsel also referred to a Bench decision of this court in WA.1167/03 & 1179/05 interpreting rule 5 of Appendix XII-A and submitted that the said provision would not take away seniority one gained based on the date of appointment to that cadre, even after he had gone on leave for employment abroad. Learned counsel also made reference to an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge in OP.No.3159 of 1998 and submitted that seniority gained by an employee under rule 27 would not be lost on the mere fact that employee took leave without allowance. Learned counsel also made reference to an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge in OP.No.3159 of 1998 and submitted that seniority gained by an employee under rule 27 would not be lost on the mere fact that employee took leave without allowance. 6. Learned Government Pleader Sri. Sandesh Raj on the other hand, contended that the leave without allowance was granted to the petitioner on specific conditions which are laid down in GO(P) No.209/84/Fin. Dated 12-4-1984 and GO(P).No.76/86/Fin. Dated 17-1-1986 wherein it has been specifically stated that an employee who takes leave would forfeit all service benefits that had accrued to him prior to his proceeding on leave. He will be deemed to be a new entrant to the Government service on return from leave. Learned Government Pleader submitted that what is protected is only his right to rejoin Government service in the same grade as if he was a new entrant. Learned Government Pleader also pointed out that no power has been conferred on the Government to relax the said condition. 7. The scope of Appendix XII-A came up for consideration before a Division Bench in Unnikrishna Panicker v. Bhasi, (2001 (1) KLT 449). The Bench has elaborately considered various points as well as the rules governing a person who has taken leave without allowance. Referring to various Government Orders on the point Bench held as follows: “The aforementioned provisions of the rules make it amply clear that if a Government employee whose probation had not been declared but availed of leave without allowance to take up employment abroad would forfeit the service benefits which had accrued to him prior to his proceeding on leave and he will be deemed as a entrant to Government Service on return from leave. He will also forfeit his seniority and will have to start his probation afresh and complete his probation on return from leave. He will also forfeit his seniority and will have to start his probation afresh and complete his probation on return from leave. Rules make it clear that what is protected is right to rejoin Government service in the same grade as if he was a new entrant.” Referring to Rule 27(c) Bench took the view that the general rule regarding seniority under rule 27(c) has to give way to specific provisions of rule 8 Part II of K.S. & S.S.R. read with rule 110-B Part I K.S.R. and Appendix XII-A. Holding so, Bench took the view that the contention that his seniority has to be counted on the basis of rule 27(c) of the K.S. & S.S.R. cannot be accepted since he has to be treated as new entrant since his probation had not been declared. The above mentioned judgment was taken up in appeal before the apex court and the SLP filed against the said judgment was dismissed. 8. The judgment in Unnikrishna Panicker’s case holds the field and is being applied in the case of those persons who are availing of leave without allowance for taking up employment abroad. We are in this case concerned with an employee who has taken leave without allowance for joining her spouse which is dealt with in Appendix XII-C of K.S.R. Rule 88, Part I, K.S.R. governs the grant of leave without allowance. Rule 110 B of Part I, K.S.R. says that rules for the grant of leave without allowances for taking up employment abroad or within India are given in Appendix XIIA. Rule 110 D of Part I, K.S.R. deals with the leave for joining spouse which says that the rules for the grant of leave without allowances for the purpose of joining spouse are given in Appendix – XIIC. We are in this case concerned with Rule 5 of Appendix XII-C, which is extracted hereunder for easy reference. “In the case of non-permanent officers in regular service who have not completed probation in regular service who have not completed probation in their entry cadre, leave under these rules may be granted subject to the condition that they shall have to start afresh and complete their probation on re-joining duty. “In the case of non-permanent officers in regular service who have not completed probation in regular service who have not completed probation in their entry cadre, leave under these rules may be granted subject to the condition that they shall have to start afresh and complete their probation on re-joining duty. The service benefits that had accrued to them before proceeding on leave shall be forfeited and on re-joining duty they shall be deemed as new entrants in the Government service.” Learned counsel interpreting the above mentioned provisions submitted that seniority is not a service benefit because only those benefits accrued out of service rendered to the Government will come within the ambit of the expression “service benefits”. Learned counsel also submitted that the impact of the words “fresh entrant” will have application only on benefits and rights like leave, pension, pay, increments etc. regulated by Kerala Service Rules and cannot touch the seniority of a Government servant determined in terms of rule 27(c) of K.S. & S.S.R. We have already indicated this contention was negatived by this court in Unnikrishna Panicker’s case. Words “service benefits” as such is not defined either in the K.S.R. or K.S. & S.S.R. Word “service” has been defined in sub-rule (15) of rule 2 which reads as follows: “Service” means a group of persons classified by the State Government as a State or a Subordinate Service as the case may be. Note:- Where the context so requires “service” means the period during which a person holds a post or a lien on a post or is a member of a service as above defined.” Seniority is the period spent by a person while he is holding a post or lein on a post or as a member of the service, ie., the benefit he derives by holding a post or a lein on a post or as a member of service. Rule 5 of Appendix XII C takes away that service benefits once he avails of leave without allowance. Rule 27(c) of K.S. & S.S.R. provides that the seniority of a person appointed to a service, class, category or grade on the advice of the Public Service Commission commences from the date of such advice. It is difficult to accept the contention that seniority is not service benefit. Rule 27(c) of K.S. & S.S.R. provides that the seniority of a person appointed to a service, class, category or grade on the advice of the Public Service Commission commences from the date of such advice. It is difficult to accept the contention that seniority is not service benefit. The intention of the rule making authority is very clear that a person who has availed of leave for employment abroad or joining his spouse will have to sacrifice all his service benefits which is more clear by the following expressions used in the rules, ie., “will have to start afresh”, “will be deemed as new entrant to government service” etc. Rule 5 does not admit any room for doubt and is made amply clear that what is protected is only the right of the officer to rejoin government service in the same cadre as if he is a new entrant. We are of the view that on a combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that Rule 27 (c) of K.S. & S.S.R. cannot nullify the effect of rule 5 of Appendix XII-A and C, Part I, K.S.R. We are therefore in full agreement with the reasoning of the learned single Judge in Sreekala’s case. Under such circumstance judgment of the learned single Judge is upheld. Appeal lacks merit and the same would stand dismissed.