JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 are drivers in the Raj Bhawan, Uttarakhand. What goes to the root of the matter in the present case is the inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2. 2. The State of Uttarakhand was created by the Act of Parliament, known as “U.P. Reorganization Act” and from the appointed date i.e. 9th November, 2000, the new State came into existence. With the creation of the new State also arose the need to run various establishments in Uttarakhand. For the Raj Bhawan establishment, services of various categories of employees were requisitioned from different State departments. The petitioner, who was working as a driver in the District Information Office at Tehri Garhwal in the erstwhile State of U.P. on the appointed date, was asked to join his services at Raj Bhawan at Dehradun, which was the provisional capital of the new State. Similarly, the services of other drivers were requisitioned from various other departments. Petitioner was working as an employee of the Information Department since 09.03.1993 and his services were requisitioned with the Raj Bhawan vide order dated 05.04.2002 and he was finally absorbed in the Raj Bhawan on 18.11.2004. 3. Respondent no. 2 on the other hand was an employee of the “Punjab State Council for Science and Technology” (from herein after referred to as “the Science & Technology Department”) since 1987 and started working with the Raj Bhawan of Uttarakhand at Dehradun since 27th June, 2001. He was also finally “absorbed” in the service of Raj Bhawan vide order dated 15.12.2004. 4. This absorption of petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 and other employees was done under the Rules known as “Absorption in Uttaranchal Governor’s Secretariat on the posts of Computer Programmer, Personal Assistant, Lower Division Assistant, Store Keeper, Assistant Librarian, Telephone Operator, Typist, Receptionist, Driver, Attendant and in Governor’s Household Establishment on the posts of Steward, Head Cook, Cook, Head Attendant, House Bearer, Spice-man, Driver Rules, 2004. These Rules (from hereinafter referred to as Rules), which were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. These Rules (from hereinafter referred to as Rules), which were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 7 (1), (2), (3) & (4) read as under:- “7(1) The date mentioned in the absorption order on the post of Governor Secretariat and Governor’s Household Establishment, shall be treated as date of substantive appointment of the concerned person on the concerned post in Governor’s Secretariat/Household Establishment, and after that date, his seniority, promotion and other service related matters shall be treated under relevant Service Rules. (2) After absorption, the inter-se seniority of employees shall be fixed on the basis of date of substantive appointment on the concerned post in Governor’s Secretariat cadre/Household Establishment and thereafter they shall be placed at the bottom in the seniority list below the junior most employees of Governor’s Secretariat Service/Household Establishment Service. At the time of fixation of seniority, those employees, who are in one pay scale at different departments, their seniority shall be fixed with reference to date of substantive appointments in parent department on the basis of calculation of service period. (3) If after absorption of employees attached from Government department/service transfer basis/deputation, some vacancies remain available under direct recruitment quota, in that case, the substantively appointed employees of Corporations and Autonomous Bodies shall absorbed. (4)The employees of Corporations/Autonomous Bodies, if absorbed, shall be placed en-bloc junior to the absorbed employees of Government departments. The inter-se seniority of absorbed employees of Corporation/Autonomous Bodies serving in same pay scale, shall be fixed with reference to date of their substantive appointment in that pay scale in their Corporation/Autonomous Bodies and on the basis of their service period till their absorption.” 5. Rule 7 (3) and Rule 7 (4) stipulates that absorption will be done first of such persons who are already employees in the Government Service of the State and thereafter as per Rule 7(4) in case of further need, employees from Government Corporations and other Autonomous Bodies will be considered for absorption. The word “Corporation and other Autonomous Bodies” have also been defined under definition Clause 4 (9) as “such Corporation and Autonomous Bodies which are under the Government of Uttarakhand! 6. The case of petitioner, inter alia, is against the absorption of respondent no. The word “Corporation and other Autonomous Bodies” have also been defined under definition Clause 4 (9) as “such Corporation and Autonomous Bodies which are under the Government of Uttarakhand! 6. The case of petitioner, inter alia, is against the absorption of respondent no. 2, inasmuch as, such absorption could not have been made under the said Rules as only such employees could have been absorbed in the Raj Bhawan services, who were either employees of the State Government and if not employees of the State Government, then at least they should be the employees of the Corporation and Autonomous Bodies which are under the State of Uttarakhand. Since, admittedly respondent no. 2 was working in an autonomous body under the Punjab Government; his absorption was not even permissible under the Rules! 7. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Smt. Indu Sharma, however, submits that the absorption Rules of 2004 were amended in the Year 2012 and in the Year 2012 both Rules 4(8) and 4(9) have been amended and as per amended Rules, “Subordinate Departments/Offices” means “Subordinate Departments/Offices” which are under Centre/States. Similarly, “Corporation and Other Autonomous Bodies” have now been defined to “Corporations and Other Autonomous Bodies, which are under the Centre/State Governments. Therefore, even employees of Central Government as well as other State Governments (i.e. other than the State of Uttarakhand), can now be absorbed in Raj Bhawan services in Uttarakhand! The scope of “absorption” has now been “widened,” the counsel would argue. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, therefore, submits that there was no illegality or impediment in the absorption of the respondent no. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amendment of Rules which have been made by the Governor on 16th April, 2012 did not have a “retrospective effect”, as Rule 1(2) only says that it will come into effect immediately i.e. w.e.f. 16th April, 2012 and such absorption, though under the amended Rules does not cure the defect of absorption which was done in the Year 2004, as the amended Rules did not have retrospective effect. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 though also submits that a tentative seniority list was published on 09.03.2006 and objections were invited in which petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 and respondent no. 2 was placed at serial no. 3. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 though also submits that a tentative seniority list was published on 09.03.2006 and objections were invited in which petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 and respondent no. 2 was placed at serial no. 3. Thereafter, the said seniority list became final on 16th March, 2006. This seniority list has not been challenged and it has attained a finality. 9. However, on 04.12.2009 both, petitioner and respondent no. 2 were promoted to higher grade i.e. Driver Grade II by the same order. All-the-same in the said list, name of the respondent no. 2 was shown as senior to the petitioner. On objection raised by the petitioner, petitioner was informed that merely because the name of respondent no. 2 has been shown higher in the list, he is not senior and the seniority will be determined by the seniority, which had been determined on 16.5.2006. 10. On 23.06.2010, another higher grade i.e. Driver Grade-I was given to the respondent no. 2 but it was denied to the petitioner at the relevant time. On objection being raised by the petitioner, he was informed that in Raj Bhawan, there are two establishments, namely, “Governor’s Secretariat” and the other “Household,” and Respondent No. 2 works in the “Household” where a different seniority will prevail. 11. In the present writ petition, petitioner not only challenged the higher grade being given to the respondent no. 2 but has challenged very absorption of the respondent no. 2 in service. 12. As far as the absorption of the respondent no. 2 is concerned, the same is patently illegal, as the same could not have been made under the Absorption Rules, 2004. The amendment in the Rule, in the Year 2012 would also not help the respondent no. 2, inasmuch as, it does not have a retrospective effect, which could cure the inherent illegality. 13. Apart from this, there is still a larger question: Can employees of other State Governments or even Central Government be “absorbed” by way of a simple “amendment” in the Rules? Not only the answer is a clear “no”, but the very manner in which it has been done, shows that it has been done to give benefit to an individual! Apart from this, there is still a larger question: Can employees of other State Governments or even Central Government be “absorbed” by way of a simple “amendment” in the Rules? Not only the answer is a clear “no”, but the very manner in which it has been done, shows that it has been done to give benefit to an individual! Even if such an “absorption” (of an employee of another State) is permissible in law it will involve a necessary interference and approval of that Government and the parent department. There is absolutely no provision on this in the present Rules. Therefore, the absorption of respondent no.2 in the service at Raj Bhawan can only be treated to be a fresh appointment, applicable since he was so called “absorbed” in the year 2004. Definitely he cannot be treated as senior to the petitioner. As regards the splitting of Raj Bhawan into “Secretariat” and “Household”, it has purely been done without making any amendment to the Rules. Therefore, they can work as an internal arrangement and no interference is called for as far as such split may have been done for the better administration but that would not change the inter se seniority of employees. Therefore, petitioner is declared to be senior to the respondent no. 2. 14. In the event now that the very absorption of the respondent no. 2 has been declared to be illegal and invalid, what is to be the fate of respondent no. 2, although the absorption of respondent no. 2 which has been done as per the amended Rules is a legal yet for reasons of justice and equity as it has been held above it will not be proper that he should be ousted from the service totally. It is an admitted fact that he has been working as a driver in the Raj Bhawan service since 27th June, 2001 and was so called “absorbed” by the respondents on 15.12.2004 his absorption from 15.12.2004 can therefore be treated to be as a fresh appointment in the Raj Bhawan service, it is for the appropriate authority to grant him the benefit of his past service in the State of Uttarakhand i.e. in the Raj Bhawan service since 27th June, 2001 but he would always be junior to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees who are either absorbed or appointed prior to the respondent no. 2. 15. In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed. The State Government is directed to give the petitioner benefit of Driver Grade –I w.e.f. 30.3.2010 when the same has been given to the respondent no. 2, along with all consequential benefits. 16. However, there has been no order as to costs.