JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved of the order contained in Memo dated 11.08.2012, whereby claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits has been rejected, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents for his absorption in service and payment of post-retiral benefits. 2. By office order dated 07.09.1977, the petitioner and other 34 persons were appointed as Accounts Clerk in Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, in the pay-scale of Rs.220-4-240-EB-5-290-EB-315/-. He was posted at Dumka office, where he gave his joining on 13.09.1977. In terms of a decision taken by the Government for deputation in different Treasury offices in the State, cutoff date of 01.07.1996 was fixed for determining the age of the employees working under different Corporations who were possessing M.Com/B.Com qualification and 24 Accounts Clerk including, the petitioner were selected. By an order dated 24.08.1996, a direction was issued to them for tendering their joining within 15 days on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner gave his joining in the Treasury office and while he was working at Treasury office, Bokaro a recommendation for absorption of his service under Treasury cadre was made on 23.05.2002. In the meantime, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited issued letter dated 08.04.2005 for returning the services of its employees who were sent on deputation, however, in purported compliance of order passed in C.W.J.C. No.8894/2002 and batch cases, by letter dated 09.05.2005, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand declined to return the services of employees of the Corporation working on deputation in different Treasuries of the State. 3. The petitioner claims that when he was forced to superannuate from service on 31.03.2010, challenging his superannuation from service he approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.1572/2010 and by an order dated 14.09.2011 the Writ Court permitted him to join the post which he was holding on 31.03.2010. The writ-petition was allowed on 15.12.2011. While continuing in service, the petitioner superannuated on 01.04.2012. The petitioner is aggrieved of decision of the Government dated 29.02.2012 whereby several similarly situated employees who came to be posted on deputation along with the petitioner in different Treasuries in the State were absorbed in service, however, the petitioner was left out and consequently, by an order dated 11.08.2012 his claim for post-retiral benefits was declined. The petitioner is aggrieved of decision of the Government dated 29.02.2012 whereby several similarly situated employees who came to be posted on deputation along with the petitioner in different Treasuries in the State were absorbed in service, however, the petitioner was left out and consequently, by an order dated 11.08.2012 his claim for post-retiral benefits was declined. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Finance Department, it is pleaded that broad guidelines for absorption of employees of various Corporations serving under different Treasuries in the State were issued, in terms of which a list of 61 employees were prepared, however, a decision to absorb the petitioner was not taken, for he had already superannuated on 31.03.2010. No other objection has been taken by the respondents. 4. Evidently, the petitioner has been illegally denied the benefit of absorption, which was extended to other similarly situated employees vide an order contained in Memo dated 29.02.2012. When the aforesaid order was issued, the petitioner was admittedly in service. The order of his premature superannuation from service was quashed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1572/2010 on 15.12.2011 and the petitioner continued in service till 31.03.2012. In the above facts, subject to fulfillment of conditions for absorption, under which 61 other employees were absorbed in service by the order contained in Memo dated 29.02.2012, the petitioner must be held entitled for absorption in service and consequent benefits of service. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.08.2012 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent-Finance Department (which has issued order dated 29.02.2012) for assessing the eligibility of the petitioner for his absorption in service on the parameters which were employed while assessing the eligibility of other 61 employees of the Corporations for their absorption in service, within a period of 8 weeks, and if the petitioner is found entitled for absorption, necessary order for his absorption and postretiral benefits shall be issued. 6. The writ-petition stands allowed, in the above terms and extent.