JUDGMENT :

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.01.2015 and Government Order dated 08.07.1987.

3. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his prayer only to the extent of interpretation of order dated 23.01.2015.

4. The facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Tehvildar (Collection Amin) in the year 1988 in the treasury department of district Varanasi. In the year 1991, district Chandauli was carved out of the district Varanasi and petitioner was placed in the new district Chandauli. Thereafter, seniority of the petitioner was not fixed and ultimately in the year 1999 he was sent from treasury department to revenue department. Petitioner was shown as absent from 01.07.2008 to 15.08.2012. He challenged the same before the Court and a direction was issued to decide the representation of the petitioner. Now, by the impugned order, his representation is decided. The impugned order states that petitioner was absent from 01.07.2008 to 15.08.2012 and on the basis of principle