Amareswar Sahy, J.@mdashHeard the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Notification No. 1987 dated 4th August, 2009 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] so far as it relates to the Petitioner, whereby the services of the Petitioner has been placed at the disposal of the Finance Department. Further prayer is to quash the Notification dated 05.09.2009 as contained in Memo No. 3029 issued by the Department of Finance, so far as it relates to the Petitioner, posting him as Treasury Officer, Dumka.
3. It appears from impugned Notification dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure-4) that the Petitioner who was posted as Commercial Taxes Officer at Deoghar, his services has been placed at the disposal of the Department of Finance and consequently, the Finance Department has posted him vide Annexure-13 as Treasury Officer at Dumka.
4. According to the Petitioner, though he originally belong to Finance Service but now, the Jharkhand Government has constituted Jharkhand Accounts Service, a separate Cadre by separating it from Jharkhand Finance Service and accordingly, Jharkhand Accounts Service Rules, 2008 has also been framed, whereby Jharkhand Accounts Service has been recognised as a separate Cadre. According to the Petitioner, now he is in the Jharkhand Accounts Service Cadre since his cadre has now been changed as Accounts Service in place of Finance Service.
5. The Petitioner is challenging the placement of his service under the Finance Department on the ground that his transfer amounts to transfer from one cadre to another which can''t be done without his consent since it amounts to change in the condition of service. It is further contended that so far as posting as a Treasury Officer by issue of Annexure-13 is concerned, his transfer and posting as Treasury Officer can''t be made because of the fact that vide Resolution Dated 18.12.1998 (Annexure-6), the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand has resolved that the Government of Bihar issued a guideline vide Resolution dated 18th December, 1998 that an Officer of more than 55 years of age would not be generally posted in the Treasury and, therefore, the placement of the Petitioner''s services in the Finance Department as well as posting him as a Treasury Officer, Dumka is illegal and unjustified.
6. The claim of the Petitioner has been controverted and contested by the Respondents by filing counter affidavit.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that Rule 6(ii) of the Jharkhand Accounts Service Rules, 2008, as contained in Annexure-14, itself provides that in case of non-availability of an Officer of the same Cadre, an Officer belonging to the Jharkhand Finance Service, Administrative Service and Accounts Service can be deputed or posted in another Cadre and in view of Rule 10, the seniority of such Officer is also not affected and, therefore, the order contained in Annexure-4 placing the service of the Petitioner to the Finance Department is perfectly legal and valid. The Respondents further submitted that so far as the age bar for posting an Officer above the age of 55 years as claimed by the Petitioner is concerned, the same does not hold good in view of the fact that the age bar of 55 years was made when the retirement age of the Government Officer was at the age of 58 years and which has now been enhanced to 60 years. Accordingly, the age bar has also been extended from 55 to 57 years, as would appear from Annexure-A annexed to the counter affidavit i.e. the Resolution dated 12.12.2009, whereby, under Clause 3, it is specifically mentioned that the Officers above the age of 57 years, would not generally be posted in the Treasury.
8. Thus the claim of the Petitioner that he has attained age of 55 years and, therefore, he cannot be posted in Treasury, has no legs to stand.
9. On consideration of facts and submission advanced by the parties, I find sufficient force in the submission made on behalf of the Respondents and come to the conclusion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality as alleged by the Petitioner.
10. Similarly, when the bar of age of 55 years for posting an officer in the Treasury has been enhanced to 57 years and, therefore, the posting of the Petitioner as Treasury Officer is also found to be valid.
11. For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner is held to be not entitled to any relief as claimed by him in this writ petition. Consequently, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
