Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Unknown vs The Union Of India on 30 April, 2013
1OA.2011/13 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI, CAMP AT NAGPUR.
O.A.No.2011/2013.
Date of decision : April 30, 2013.
Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Basheer, Member (J) Hon'ble Shri R.C. Joshi, Member (A).
Sanjay Kashiramji Lade, Service in Income Tax Department, R/o.Plot No.53, Sampada Sneh Nagar (Tajne Layout), Behind Welcome Society, Zingabai Takli, Nagpur. .. Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri M.N. Ranade ).
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi-110050.
2. The Director General (Systems), Director General of Income Tax (Systems), A.R.A. Centre, Ground Floor, E-2, Zhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110 055.
3. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Telankhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Computer Operation)-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Telankhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001. .. Respondents. ( By Advocate Shri R.G. Agrawal ).
2 OA.2011/13Order (Oral) Per : Justice A.K. Basheer, Member (J).
Who is the Cadre Controlling Authority in the case of Data Processing Assistant Group-A and Group-B; is if the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur or the Director General Income Tax (Systems), New Delhi?
2. The above query put by the applicant to the higher authorities persistently for quite some time has remained unanswered. It is, therefore, that the applicant has filed this Original Application seeking an answer to the said question.
3. The grievance of the applicant appears to be that the financial upgradations which are available to him and other similarly placed employees in the Income Tax Department are being withheld because of the inaction on the part of the Competent Authority. The applicant has got a further case that his Grade Pay has been erroneously mentioned as Rs.4200/-. In fact according to him before granting benefit of MACP his Grade Pay has to be shown as Rs.4600/-and after such grant it will become Rs.4800/-. Any how we do not propose to deal with the above or other issues any further at this stage in view of the submission made by the 3 OA.2011/13 applicant that several of his representations in this regard are pending consideration before the Competent Authority. In Annexure A-1 representation which is stated to have been submitted by the applicant on March 27, 2012, the applicant has requested for appropriate necessary action in the matter. In this representation the applicant has also requested Respondent No.2 to name the Cadre Controlling Authority in his case. He has further requested that Departmental Promotion Committee be held after issuing clear instructions in this regard.
4. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly the prayers made in this Original Application, we do not deem it necessary to retain this Original Application on the file. Therefore, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2 to take a decision on Annexure A-1 and other representations, if any, that may be pending unanswered, strictly on their merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to 4 OA.2011/13 mention that the applicant shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter.
5. The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms.
(R.C. Joshi) (Justice A.K. Basheer) Member (A) Member (J).
H.