Judgment Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. Two petitioners, by this writ petition have challenged two orders dated 7th August, 2007 and 25th August, 2007 respectively issued by the respondents authorities. By the first mentioned order respondent authority had taken decision that the post of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk is different cadre from the post of Junior Assistant and thereby they should be treated separately. The second one is the order of rejection basing on the first order. The short fact, narrated in the writ petition to challenge the aforesaid two orders, is as follows:- The petitioners were appointed by the then Government of Uttar Pradesh Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerks. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 1st March, 1995 while the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 5th March, 1995. They claim, at the time of appointment, under the Rules they were treated to be at par with the cadre of Junior Clerk in other Government Departments or Offices. Their assertion is supported by the relevant Rule 5(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urdu Translator cum Junior Clerk, 1995 (for short “the Rules”) which has been stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. According to them their status and position were same as that of the Junior Clerks, rather they were serving in better way than the Junior Clerk does under the Cadre Curricular Scheme. Both these cadres were enjoying the same pay scale. It is further stated that under Rule 21 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 (in short “Rules 1991”) the seniority of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk has been determined in accordance with the Rules, 1991. According to them, combined seniority list of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk and Ordinary Junior Clerk should have been prepared under aforesaid Rule 1991, but it was not done so, even after bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 9 November, 2000. After bifurcation, the State of Uttarakhand issued an Office Order dated 24th June, 2005 whereby and whereunder aforesaid posts of Junior Clerks and Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerks amongst other were restructured describing them as Junior Assistant instead of Junior Clerk. The next promotional post of the Junior Clerk is the Senior Assistant, going by the same analogy promotional post of Urdu Translator-cum- Junior Assistant is the Senior Assistant. This promotion is to be given on the basis of seniority list whereof was to be prepared. The next promotional post of the Junior Clerk is the Senior Assistant, going by the same analogy promotional post of Urdu Translator-cum- Junior Assistant is the Senior Assistant. This promotion is to be given on the basis of seniority list whereof was to be prepared. Thus it will appear from the said order dated 24th June, 2005 that it has not mentioned the post of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk, as a separate cadre post and different from that of Ordinary Junior Clerk of other Government Departments. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to all the benefits likewise other Ordinary Junior Assistant. Unfortunately, by the letter dated 30th September, 2006 addressed by Commissioner, Rural Development to the Additional Secretary, Rural Development, State of Uttarakhand misconstrued the status of the petitioners while treating them differently from the Junior Assistant as far as Dehradun District is concerned. The above decision taken in the said letter is absolutely contrary to the said restructuring order dated 24th June, 2005. It appears by the impugned order dated 7th August, 2007 purported to have been passed in terms of the High Court’s order dated 11th May, 2007 passed in the Writ Petition No. 494 (S/S) of 2007. The above order of the High Court nowhere mentioned that the decision should be taken in a manner which has been done by the respondents by the above order dated 7th August, 2007. This order is contrary to the restructuring order and the same is discriminatory and arbitrary also. Naturally, the order of rejection of the petitioners’ representation dated 25th August, 2007 is also arbitrary and discriminatory. It is stated that barring District Dehradun in all other Districts, no such decision has been taken. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been asserted by the respondents while opposing the writ petition that two posts in all practical purposes are treated to be separate cadre and in fact this issue cropped up before this Hon’ble High Court previously and in terms of the High Court order the decision has been taken that Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Assistants should be treated separately and differently from that of the Ordinary Junior Assistant in the State Government establishment. Since this order was passed pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court’s order and effect has already been given and thereby seniority list has been prepared separately. Indeed, after preparation of seniority list, promotions were given to various persons. Since this order was passed pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court’s order and effect has already been given and thereby seniority list has been prepared separately. Indeed, after preparation of seniority list, promotions were given to various persons. If it is disturbed, there would be serious administrative chaos. 3. In the rejoinder affidavit it is asserted that in the said writ petition petitioners were not a party as such the order is not binding upon them. The decision has been taken ignoring restructuring order. Hon’ble High Court has not directed to ignore any order or to misconstrue any previous order or decision of the Rules governing the service of both the cadres. Indeed, previously there was no seniority list prepared, neither combined nor separate. If this order is allowed to stand then the petitioners right of promotion would be totally jeopardized. 4. Mr. Ravi Babulkar appearing for the petitioners submits that the rejection of the representation of the petitioners consequently denial of avenues for promotion to the next higher position of Senior Assistant is discriminatory, arbitrary and wholly illegal. No dispute has been raised to the fact that the cadre of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk at the stage of his clients’ appointment and the Junior Clerk in general cadre is the same. It was consolidated cadre and there had been no separation at any point of time. No document has been produced to support the story of separation of the cadre. All the time, for all practical purposes, even after bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, these two posts are treated as integrated cadre of the Junior Clerk, therefore, combined seniority list ought to have been prepared. It will appear from the order issued by the Department, immediately after bifurcation, these two posts are treated at par and there has been no segregation of the cadre. He submits that except District Dehradun in other Districts of the State of Uttarakhand these two posts are treated as same cadre and thus promotional avenue was provided to the Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk. However, unfortunately, in purported compliance of the order of the respondent concerned has decided the issue holding that Junior Clerk is a separate cadre and only this substantive post holder is entitled to get promotion. However, unfortunately, in purported compliance of the order of the respondent concerned has decided the issue holding that Junior Clerk is a separate cadre and only this substantive post holder is entitled to get promotion. In the said writ petition his clients were not the party nor the High Court has mandated that the Department should take decision in the way it has been taken. 5. The order, pursuant to the High Court’s order passed, is completely contrary to the Rules under which the petitioners along with other Junior Clerks were originally appointed, even thereafter by the order of restructuring, they were continued to be treated as such. Therefore, this order is not sustainable. The respondent cannot ignore relevant Rules nor can take decision contrary to what has been provided in the Rules. 6. This order is discriminatory and arbitrary as in other Districts such an order has not been enforced, rather in other Districts other than Dehradun, these two cadres are treated as integrated cadre and promotion has been granted. Under these circumstances, these two orders are liable to be struck down. 7. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State/respondents while supporting these two orders contends that the representation has duly been considered by the authority concerned pursuant to the decision taken by the Government in terms of the order of this Court. Therefore, there is no illegality. He says that under the relevant Rules, since beginning, these two cadres are separate and independent cadres. Separate provisions have been made for the avenues of promotion. The petitioners cannot claim promotion to the post of Senior Assistants for which the feeder post is Junior Assistant. In terms of the order dated 7th August, 2007 action has been taken by the Government and promotion has been granted and if this order is disturbed by this Court there should be serious administrative inconvenience as a large number of third parties would be affected. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the writ petition, counter affidavit as well as the rejoinder affidavit, it appears to me that going by the nomenclature of two posts, namely, Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk and Junior Assistant under the Rules are treated at par and there is no difference and distinction except the nomenclature as to their designation. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it has been stated and supported by the Rules that since their dates of respective appointments, the Urdu Translation-cum-Junior Clerks and Ordinary Junior Clerks in different Government Departments have been treated one integrated cadre in different designation. These statements and averments have been dealt with in the counter affidavit in paragraph 12. It has been stated therein that as per Rule 6 of the Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerks, it is provided that posts of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk would be created by the direction of the Government from time to time. It is further stated that in the office of Head of the Department, Commissionary Level and District Level the posts of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk separately created by the Government by the orders dated 20th August, 1994, 9th September, 1994 and the Government Order dated 3rd February, 1995. Unfortunately these Government Orders have not been produced before the Court nor have been annexed. It is sought to be suggested that the post of Junior Clerk is governed by Rules 1980 and the post of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk is governed by Rule 1994, but those rules were not produced before me. According to me that designation of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk includes the cadre of Junior Clerk. Moreover, these employees are having additional skill of translating. Even after bifurcation, I find that in the order of restructuring of the Government employees in Sl. No. 10 thereof, the pay scales of erstwhile Junior Clerk and Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk which have been re-designated as Junior Assistant and Translator-cum-Junior Assistant respectively and also Computer Operator is same. I think, had there been any idea to separate the cadre of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Assistant from that of Junior Assistant then this separate cadre could have been created. Thus, I am of the view that no averment without any supported document, made in the counter affidavit does establish story of creation of separate cadre. 9. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed out that the order of the High Court has merely asked the Department to consider the case and take decision on the identical issue, but nowhere the High Court has said to ignore the order or the Rules governing the same subject. In that writ petition, the petitioners before me were not parties. 10. In that writ petition, the petitioners before me were not parties. 10. According to me, the Government Department should have notified not only the Junior Assistant but also Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Assistant, as in terms of the restructuring order, they are also interested and affected persons. Admittedly they were not heard and on that ground the said order dated 7th August, 2007 is not sustainable. Consequently, the order of rejection of the representation dated 25th August, 2007 is also not sustainable under the law. 11. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that no combined seniority list has been prepared in Dehradun District. It has been stated in the same paragraph that in other Districts of Uttarakhand, the District Development Officer has issued combined seniority list for Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk and Ordinary Junior Clerk and then they have been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. Unfortunately, in the District of Dehradun discriminatory treatment has been meted out by illegally treating the petitioners being the members of separate cadre. This statement and averment in paragraph 14 has not been denied and disputed by the competent officials of the State who has affirmed the counter affidavit. I find no explanation is forthcoming as to why discriminatory stand has been taken. 12. In view of the aforesaid factual position and discussion, I hold writ petition succeeds. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and set aside two orders dated 7th August, 2007 and 25th August, 2007. I direct the respondents to take decision for preparing a combined seniority list for granting promotion in accordance with the Rules for the district of Dehradun. Of course, this has to be done after notifying not only the Junior Assistant but also the Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Assistant. It appears that this Court has passed an interim order dated 5th September, 2007 to the effect that promotion, if any, made on the post of Senior Assistant in the Department of Rural Development in the District Dehradun shall be subject to the decision of this Court. Therefore, the persons, who have already been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant, exclusively should continue to work as such until fresh decision is taken in terms of this order. They shall also be notified and be heard. After the decision is taken the promotion should be granted in accordance with law. Therefore, the persons, who have already been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant, exclusively should continue to work as such until fresh decision is taken in terms of this order. They shall also be notified and be heard. After the decision is taken the promotion should be granted in accordance with law. Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. 13. I make it clear that the employees, who are enjoying the promotional benefit, and ultimately their order of promotion is liable to be cancelled because of preparation of combined seniority list consequently granting fresh promotion, no recovery should be made from them. 14. There will be no order as to costs.