Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1146 (JHR)

Nirmal Kumar Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-21

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. Counsel for the respondent-State is present and has also filed a counter affidavit. 2. By the impugned notification bearing Memo No. 289 dated 28.2.2014, Annexure 9 issued by the Animal Husbandry cum Fisheries Department, Government of Jharkhand, the incumbents named therein, who are the private respondents in the writ petition, have been given additional charge as District Fisheries Officers for different districts, apart from their original post in individual cases such as Deputy Director, Fisheries, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, Assistant Director, Fisheries and District Fisheries Officers in their respective districts. Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notification said to have been issued pursuant to the Resolution bearing Memo No. 3245 dated 26.11.2013 of the Finance Department on the ground that the same is in excess of jurisdiction. They have sought stay of the impugned notification. 3. As a matter of fact, petitioners are working as Fishery Extension Officers (non-gazetted class-II) in the scale of Rs. 9300-34800, Grade Pay Rs. 4200, who were given charge of the District Fishery Officers, which is a Gazetted Post in the scale of Rs. 9300-34800 Grade Pay Rs. 4800 (Class-II) as there were insufficient officers in the cadre holding the post of District Fisheries Officers. By virtue of their earlier posting these petitioners became Drawing and Disbursing Officers in their own pay scale. This anomaly was noticed by the Finance Department, which issued Resolution dated 26.11.2013 to the effect that the charge of Drawing and Disbursing Officer to Non-Gazetted Employee is against the established practice and in violation of Rules 148 of the Jharkhand Treasury Code, which provides that only the Gazetted Officers are entitled to act as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (Annexure-A). Rule 148 of the Jharkhand Treasury Code, as referred to in Para-10 of the counter affidavit, is quoted hereunder: "The head of an office may authorize any Gazetted government servant serving under him to sign a bill or order for him, communicating the name and the specimen signature of the government servant to the disbursing office concerned." 4. Consequently, the respondent-Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department issued the Notification at Annexure-9 giving additional charge to the private respondents, who admittedly are holding Class-I or Class-II Gazetted post and are working in the respective capacities as referred to in the foregoing part of this judgment. Consequently, the respondent-Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department issued the Notification at Annexure-9 giving additional charge to the private respondents, who admittedly are holding Class-I or Class-II Gazetted post and are working in the respective capacities as referred to in the foregoing part of this judgment. Since these private respondents are Gazetted officers, by the impugned notification, they have been given additional charge of District Fishery Officers of the concerned district where earlier petitioners were posted. 5. Respondents also have stated that the petitioners after issuance of the impugned notification, preferred representations before the Director, Fisheries, Jharkhand requesting for their posting such as Annexure-C&D. However, they have approached this Court challenging the posting of such Gazetted Officers as District Fishery Officers, though Rule 148 of the Jharkhand Treasury Code mandates otherwise. According to the respondents, these petitioners have been posted to their basic post i.e. Fishery Extension Officer vide office order no. 1181 dated 2.5.2014 issued by the Director, Fisheries, Jharkhand (Annexure-E). Counsel for the respondents submits that therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned notification and no interference is required in the matter. 6. The aforesaid contention made in the counter affidavit do not stand refuted by any rejoinder filed by the petitioners. 7. Having taken into account the relevant material facts on record and submissions made on behalf of the respondent State, it is apparent that the petitioners, who are not the Gazetted Officers, cannot claim as a matter of right to hold the post of District Fishery Officer having Drawing and Disbursing Power in contravention of Rule 148 of the Jharkhand Treasury Code. Accordingly, the impugned notification granting such additional charge to the officers of Class-I or Class-II service to ensure that the Drawing and Disbursing powers are exercised by the Gazetted Officer in the cadre, cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or lack of jurisdiction warranting interference. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.