JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order, dated 24.07.2024, passed by the Commissioner (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, as many as 12 (Twelve) Officers serving as Finance & Account Officer and Treasury Officer, have been transferred and posted, including the petitioner, who has been transferred from Treasury Office, Tawang to Treasury Office, Longding. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Finance and Account Officer/Treasury Officer (Group-A Gazetted), vide order, dated 31.03.2009, and was posted as Treasury Officer, Bomdila, West Kameng District. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Treasury Office, Tawang in the month of August, 2018. By the impugned order, dated 24.07.2024, as many as 12 (Twelve) Finance & Account Officers and Treasury Officers, have been transferred and posted in various places, including the petitioner, who has been transferred from Treasury Office, Tawang to Treasury Office, Longding and he was released on 11.11.2024. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that on joining at Treasury Office, Longding, pursuant to the order of transfer, dated 24.07.2024, he came to know that there is no sanctioned post of Treasury Officer at Longding and he has been posted to the post of Sub-Treasury Officer, which is a Group-B Gazetted post and a lower post which carries lower status and pay scale than the post of a Treasury Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation on 30.10.2024, praying for recalling/cancelation of his transfer, stating that his transfer and posting to a lower post of Sub-Treasury Officer is illegal and that as his son is studying at Tawang, his transfer during the academic period will hamper the study of his son, which has not been considered as on date. 5. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Sub-Treasury Officer is a Group-B Gazetted post, carrying lesser pay scale and is a subordinate post in status to the post of Treasury Officer, which is a Group-A Gazetted post, carrying higher pay scale. The job profile and function of the post also differ to a large extent. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Sub-Treasury Officer is a Group-B Gazetted post, carrying lesser pay scale and is a subordinate post in status to the post of Treasury Officer, which is a Group-A Gazetted post, carrying higher pay scale. The job profile and function of the post also differ to a large extent. He submits that since the substantive post of the petitioner is Treasury Officer, which is Group-A Gazetted post, the transfer of the petitioner to the Office of the Sub-Treasury Officer, on a lower post is illegal, which would adversely affect his service condition. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner to a lower post is illegal and unsustainable. 6. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Jumtum Tato vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. , 2019 (3) GLR 324 and Dr. Sunil Shrirang Bawaskar vs. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in WP (C) No. 677 of 2010 reported in 2010 (4) Mh. L.J. 384 , to submit that no employee can be transferred to a non-existent post. 7. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents submits that the Longding Sub-Treasury Office is no longer a Sub-Treasury Office but has been upgraded to a District Treasury Office, vide order, dated 06.03.2020. However, in view of the upgradation of various Sub-Treasury Offices to District Treasury Offices, the post of Treasury Officers is lying vacant and appropriate steps have already been initiated for upgrading/creation of post of the Treasury Officers and the same is under active consideration of the State Government. He submits that the Sub-Treasury Office has been upgraded to District Treasury Office but the sanctioned post of Sub-Treasury Officer has not been discontinued, rather continued and the last Sub-Treasury Officer, who was posted at Longding was posted to Treasury Office at Palin in the District of Kra- dadi as In-Charge Treasury Officer. Therefore, although the post of Treasury Officer is yet to be sanctioned in the District Treasury Office at Longding, there is no illegality in transferring the petitioner to the District Treasury Office at Longding as Treasury Officer. 8. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also, perused the materials available on record. 9. Therefore, although the post of Treasury Officer is yet to be sanctioned in the District Treasury Office at Longding, there is no illegality in transferring the petitioner to the District Treasury Office at Longding as Treasury Officer. 8. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also, perused the materials available on record. 9. Admittedly, the substantive post of the petitioner is Treasury Officer. Normally, the employee should be transferred and posted to a substantive post in a particular Office and it would not be permissible to transfer an employee to a non-existent post. 10. The petitioner has been posted as Treasury Officer to the newly upgraded District Treasury Office, Longding, which was mann by the Sub-Treasury Officer before its upgradation. The District Treasury Office, Longding would be held by the Treasury Officer. Although no sanctioned post of Treasury Officer exists at the time of the transfer of the petitioner, the Sub-Treasury Office having been upgraded to a District Treasury Office, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been transferred and posted to a non-existent post. 11. It is also noticed that the State respondents have already initiated steps for creation of the post of Treasury Officer and is said to be under active consideration of the State Government. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that no prejudice would cause to the petitioner on being transferred as Treasury Officer to District Treasury Office, Longding, as the same would not violate any service conditions, status and other benefits of the Treasury Officer. Thus, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality in transferring the petitioner as Treasury Officer to the District Treasury Office, Longding. 12. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of Jumtum Tato (supra) pertains to transfer of a Chief Engineer (Power) as Officer on Special Duty, a non-sanctioned and non-existent post, that too by bringing the Superintending Engineer, in place of the petitioner by way of an additional charge of the Chief Engineer. In that context, this Court has held the transfer order to be fraud with illegality and without sanction of law. 13. In that context, this Court has held the transfer order to be fraud with illegality and without sanction of law. 13. The case of Sunil Shrirang Bawaskar (supra) of the Bombay High Court pertains to transfer of an Assistant Professor, to physically work under the Dean, College of Agriculture, where there is no post of Assistant Professor (Veterinary Science) at Akola. Since there was no post, it has been held that no employee can be transferred to a non-existent post. 14. In the present case, although the post of Treasury Officer at District Treasury Office, Longding is yet to be sanctioned, on its upgradation, the Office would be mann by the Treasury Officer, which the petitioner has been transferred without deprivation of any benefits including status and other service conditions. Therefore, the case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable. 15. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no illegality in transferring the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. 16. It is observed that dismissal of the present writ petition rejecting the claim of the petitioner would not be construed that an employee can be transferred and posted to non-existent post as the present petition is dismissed on its attending facts and circumstances. 17. The writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of.