( 1 ) A point of considerable importance as to the power of the State Government to differ from the recommendation made by the High Court in the matter of grant of notional promotion and payment of monetary benefits in pursuance thereof to a City Civil Judge in exercise of its power under Act. 235 of the Constitution of India arises in this petition. The question arises in the following circumstances:the Petitioner began his judicial career as an Assistant Judge and Additional Sessions Judge in the former State of Saurashtra on 5/11/1948 He was promoted as District Judge and had acted also as a Remembrancer of legal affairs and Secretary in the Law Department in the times of the erstwhile State of Saurashtra in July 1951 In 1954 the Petitioner requested for his repatriation to the Judicial Service but the then Government of the State of Saurashtra could not spare his services though he was assured that his interest of judicial service will not be jeopardized by the petitioners continuance in the Legal Department. The Petitioner was thereafter transferred from Legal Department and posted as District and Sessions Judge at Bhavnagar in June 1956 Thereafter he was transferred to different districts in the bilingual State of Bombay in Kutch and Panchmahals districts in 1957 and 1959 respectively. On formation of the State of Gujarat in May 1961 the Petitioner was again transferred and posted as District and Sessions Judge Bhavnagar in 1962. Unfortunately however on the establishment of the City Civil Courts at Ahmedabad in November 1961 he was not promoted as City Civil Judge having regard to the seniority assigned to him ill the provisional seniority list of District Judges as on the date of the formation of the bigger bilingual State that is 1 However on 2/06/1965 he was promoted as City Civil Judge. He however was not elevated and appointed as Principal Judge City Civil Courts till his superannuation on 24/01/1969 It should be recalled that the Government of the erstwhile bilingual State of Bombay on the recommendation of the High Court of Bombay while fixing the seniority of District Judges coming from different merging States had deducted five years of service of judicial officers coming from Saurashtra State including the Petitioner as decided by the Government resolution of 25/10/1956 The said resolution provided for equation of the posts of the employees of the merging States including the old State of Saurashtra. It inter alia directed to equate the posts of Saurashtra employees after deducting five years from their total length of service. Since the decision contained in the Government resolution of 25/10/1957 was without the prior approval of the Central Government it violated the provisions contained in sec. 155 of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 The Union Government by the letter of 5/02/1960 directed the Government of Bombay that the absorption of Saurashtra employees should be on cadre to cadre basis and that inter se seniority of those employees should be determined on the basis of the total length of their continuous officiation in the equated cadre and the Govt. of Bombay was advised that it should take immediate steps accordingly to revise the equation and the seniority. A full Bench of this Court in A. J. PATEL and ORS. V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT and ORS. AIR 1965 GUJARAT 23 also ruled accordingly. The Government of Maharashtra therefore by its resolution of 25/11/1971 ultimately revised the gradation list of the judicial officers of the merging States as 1/11/1956 where the Petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 20 and placed him above S/shri N. G. Shelat A. S. Sarela T. U. Mehta J. M. Sheth and V. R. Shah who were shown at Sr. No. 32 to 36 respectively in the said list. The Maharashtra Government therefore resolved by its resolution of 18/10/1975 in exercise of its power under Rule 4 (1) of the Allocated Government Servants (Absorption Seniority Pay and Allowances) Rules 1957 and absorbed the allocated