Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Krishna Kumar Deepak And Other vs M/O Finance on 10 September, 2025
1 OA No.12/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.12 OF 2019
Dated this Wednesday, the 10th day of September, 2025
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. SHRI KRISHNA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR. UMESH GAJANKUSH, MEMBER (J)
1. Krishna Kumar Deepak, son of late Ram Binod Singh,
date of birth: 5.6.1976, age: 42 years 06 months,
working as: Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post), Mumbai,
in the office of ITO (TDS)-1(3)(1), Room No.605, 6th Floor,
K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road (W),
Mumbai-400002 and residing at: 376, 3rd Floor,
Building No.15, Antop Hill, C.G.S. Colony, Antophill Hill,
Mumbai 400037, State of Maharashtra.
2. Abhishek Kumar, son of Gagan Bihari Singh,
date of birth: 09.07.1980, age: 38 years 5 months,
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post), ITO (HQ),
Admin-III, Room No.345, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road,
Marine Lines, Mumbai and residing at: 1003/13-B,
Income Tax Residential Complex, Rambaug, Post Powai,
Mumbai 400076, State of Maharashtra.
3. Deepak Prakash Bishnoi, son of Ramswaroop Bishnoi,
date of birth: 6.8.1980, age 38 years 04 months,
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
in the office of Tax Recovery Officer-14, Room No.141,
Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 and residing at 603/13-B,
MHADA, Income Tax Residential Complex, Rambaug,
Post Powai, Mumbai 400076, State of Maharashtra.
4. Madhu Singh, wife of Rajeev Kumar Singh,
date of birth: 12.04.1980, age 38 years 8 months,
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
under ADG-DTRIT, Mahalakshmi Chambers, Mumbai, and
residing at: A-116-1st Floor, C.G.S. Quarters, Wadala (West),
Mumbai 400031, State of Maharashtra.
Khushboo
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=
8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b
92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
5. Rajesh Soni, son of Mahesh Chandra Soni,
date of birth: 26.01.1984, age 34 years 11 months,
9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta
Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2 OA No.12/2019
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
in the office of ITO(HQ) to Pro.CIT-19, Room No.227,
2nd Floor, Matru Mandir Building, Tardeo Road,
Mumbai 400007, and residing at: 52, Ground Floor,
Building No.3, C.G.S. Colony, Sector 7, Antop Hill,
Mumbai 400037, State of Maharashtra.
6. Sandeep Kumar Singh, son of Balendra Pratap Singh,
date of birth: 14.10.1981, age: 37 years 2 months,
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
in the office of ITO (Audit)-2(13), Room No.109, C-11,
Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai 400051, and residing at: Flat No.805,
Platinum Venecia, Sector-29, Nerul (East),
Navi Mumbai-400706, State of Maharashtra.
7. Shiv Kumar Gupta, son of Rajendra Kumar Gupta,
date of birth: 18.08.1981, age: 37 years 4 months,
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
in the office of ITO (HQ)TPS-2, Room No.5, Aayakar Bhavan,
M.K. Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai, and residing at: A-901,
9th Floor, Sai Crystals, Sector-35-D, Kharghar,
District Raigad Pin Code-410210, State of Maharashtra.
8. Harswardhan Kumar, son of Shri Sukhdeo Singh
date of birth : 04.01.1980, age 38 years 11 months,
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
in the Office of ITO-27(2)(1), Room No.413, Tower No.6,
Vashi Railway Station Complex, Sector-30A, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai 400703, and residing at Building No.18,
Flat No.1103, Neel Sidhi Amarante, Sector-9E, Kalamboli,
Navi Mumbai 410218, State of Maharashtra.
9. Nipun Kumar, son of Siddha Nath Singh
date of birth: 10.01.1982, age: 36 years 11 months,
working as: Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
in the office of ITO(HQ) to Pr.CIT-21, Piramal Chambers,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400012 and residing at: A374,
2nd Floor, 15th Floor, CGS Colony, Antop Hill, Sector-7,
Mumbai, State of Maharashtra.
10. Deepak Kumar Jain, son of Brij Lal Jain,
Khushboo
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=
8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b
92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
date of birth: 05.09.1979, age: 39 years 3 months,
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta
Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
3 OA No.12/2019
in the office of ITO (IT)-2(2)(1), Room No.1725, 17th Floor,
Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 and
residing at: 314/SBI-4, 3rd Floor, Income Tax Colony,
Yashodham Vidyalaya Marg, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai 400063, State of Maharashtra.
11. Vikash Kumar Singh, son of Shri Nakul Singh,
date of birth: 22.12.1979, age: 39 years,
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
in the office of ITO(IT)-2(3)(1), Room No.1727, 17th Floor,
Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 and
residing at: 202, 2nd Floor, Springfields, Plot No.60,
Sector 17, Kalamboli Road, Pali, Navi Mumbai,
District Raigad, Pin Code 410 218, State of Maharashtra.
12. Sunita Pal, daughter of Hari Singh Pal,
date of birth: 02.03.1979, age: 39 years 09 months,
working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B" Post),
in the office of ITO(HQ) (Technical) to CIT (IT)-2, Mumbai,
Room No.1720, 17th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400021, and residing at 111, SBI-3,
Old Income Tax Colony, Yashodham, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai 400063, State of Maharashtra. - Applicants
(By Advocate Shri R.G.Walia)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through: The Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes, CBDT,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai (CCA) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020.
3. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Head Quarter)
Personnel and Technical, Gazetted Pay Bill Section,
3rd Floor, Room No.381/352, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,
Mumbai 400 020. - Respondents
Khushboo
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=
8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b
92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta
(By Advocate Shri N.K.Rajpurohit)
Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
4 OA No.12/2019
Reserved on 30.06.2025
Pronounced on 10.09.2025
ORDER
Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
The present Original Application has been by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by seeking the following reliefs :
"8(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to call for the records of the case and be pleased to Order and direct the Respondents to grant the grade pay of Rs.4800 with effect from 25.4.2012 and Rs.5400/- w.e.f April 2016 (as extended to the juniors of the Applicants) and accordingly grant pay fixation, salary, arrears of pay etc to the Applicants with 18% interest thereon.
8(b). The Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned act of the Respondents of not granting pay fixation from the date the juniors came to be granted the grade pay of Rs.4800/- with effect from 25.4.2012 and Rs.5400/- with effect from April 2016 and which has resulted in juniors drawing more pay than seniors is illegal and wrong and accordingly direct the Respondents to grant all benefits with regard to pay fixation as has been extended to the juniors of the Applicants who came to be prompted as Income Tax Officers (ITO) vide Order dated 25.4.2012.
8(c). Any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8(d). Costs of this Original Application be provided for."
2. Brief facts of the case stated in the Original Application are that the applicants are 2005 batch of Income Tax Inspectors. It is stated that the applicant had to approach this Tribunal with regard to Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta their grievance of proper seniority fixation as per the law laid down Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 OA No.12/2019 in the case of N.R.Parmar.
2(a). On 25.04.2012, based on illegal and wrong seniority, the respondents effected promotions to the post of Income Tax Officers whereby juniors of the applicants were promoted. Thus, before a proper seniority list could be issued, the applicants were denied their promotions with effect from 25.04.2012 wherefrom their juniors were promoted.
2(b). It is stated that after the issuance of the proper seniority list in accordance with the law as laid down in case of N.R.Parmar, the applicants came to be promoted as Income Tax Officers from the date their juniors were promoted i.e. vide order dated 25.04.2016.
2(c). It is stated that once the applicants were promoted with effect from 25.04.2012 and, thereafter, they are entitled for pay fixation and arrears of pay as granted to their juniors. Further, they are also entitled to the grade pay of Rs.5,400/- after completion of four years of service with effect from April, 2016.
2(d). It is stated that various representations have been made by the applicants but, however, the respondents have always replied to the applicants that their case is under consideration. It is stated that the colleagues of the applicants in other Commissionerates like Gujarat and Hyderabad have already been extended the benefit of Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta pay fixation and grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- through arrears Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 OA No.12/2019 have not been paid in respect of Rs.4,800/-. The impugned action is challenged by the applicants on the ground that denial of proper fixation of pay, salary, arrears of pay i.e. Grade Pay with effect from 25.04.2012 and Rs.5,400/- with effect from April, 2016 on completion of four years of service for the post of Income Tax Officers is absolutely illegal and wrong.
3. After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. In reply, the official respondents have stated chronological dates and events through table which reads as under :
SR. DATE PARTICULARS EX. PG.
1 2005 Applicants were appointed as Income Tax
Inspector after due selection process.
Sl. Name of the applicant Date of
No. joining as
Inspector
1 Krishna Kumar Deepak 19.01.2009
2 Abhishek Kumar 03.11.2008
3 Deepak Prakash 24.11.2008
Bhisnoi
4 Madhu Singh 22.12.2008
5 Rajesh Soni 10.12.2008
6 Sandeep Kumar Singh 01.12.2008
7 Shiv Kumar Gupta 19.01.2009
8 Harswardhan Kumar 28.11.2008
9 Nipun Kumar 24.11.2008
10 Deepak Kumar Jain 12.12.2008
11 Vikash Kumar Singh 21.11.2008
12 Sunita Pal 02.12.2008
2 27.11.2012 The Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of N. R. Union of India &Ors. was pronounced on 27.11.2012. The implementation of the N. R. Parmar Judgment in the Cadre of Income Tax Officer (ITO) in Mumbai region was made vide Order No. Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document MUM/CCIT/ADMN/GAZ/PROM/ Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 OA No.12/2019 ITO/NRP/2016-17 dated 25.04.2016 after conducting Review DPCs from the Recruitment Year (R.Y.) 1992-93 onwards. The seniority of the Officers for the R.Y. 2006-07 was accordingly reviewed.
3 25.04.2012 Twenty Nine (29) inspectors were promoted to A7 62- the post of Income Tax Officer vide Order No. 63
MUM/CCIT/ADMN/GAZ/1/2012-13. promotion order was As issued before the implementation of the N. R. Parmar Judgment in Mumbai Region, it is erroneous to contend that any junior was promoted before the Applicants. 4 31.05.2014 Seniority came to be granted to the Applicants. 5 April 2016 The Applicants state that they became entitled to grant of proper fixation i.e. grant of grade pay of Rs.4800 with effect from 25.04.2012 and the Grade pay of Rs.5400 w.e.f. April 2016.
6 04.01.2017 Respondents' order whereby the Applicants, A4 46- pursuant to their representations, were 50 informed that their matter is under consideration.
7 The Applicants allege that the denial of proper pay fixation, salary and consequential benefits in view of the grant of Seniority to the Applicants as laid down in N.R. Parmar is inevitable and that on completion of 4 years w.e.f. 25.04.2012 the Applicants are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.5400.
3(a). It is further stated that the Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- is applicable on the completion of four years of regular service as an Income Tax Officer in accordance with clarification dated 06.03.2009 and 14.09.2009 (Annexures R-3 and R-4). It is stated that all the applicants in the present OA have assumed the charge as Income Tax Officer (ITO) as per promotion order dated 04.06.2014 or 06.06.2014 (afternoon or in forenoon).
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal GuptaKhushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8 OA No.12/2019 3(b). It is also stated that for the purposes of seniority and monetary benefits including all consequential benefit shall be calculated from date of their assuming charge as Income Tax Officer and by taking the aforesaid date of assumption of charge, the applicants have completed their four years in June, 2018 in respective dates from which they have rightly been granted the benefits of Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- in Pay Band II.
3(c). Since the applicants have assumed the charge of the post of Income Tax Officers in June, 2014 and, therefore, it is not correct to contend that the applicants ought to have been given benefit of pay, salary and such consequential benefits from 25.04.2012 as that is not the date for the applicants to assume the charge as Income Tax Officer.
3(d). It is further submitted that on implementation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.R.Parmar and all other related cases, the seniority of the applicants have been refixed vide order dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure R-5). Vide this order, seniority of the applicants was refixed and they were placed in the recruitment year 2012-2013. Thus, the applicants did not take the charge of ITO till when they were actually promoted as Income Tax Officer's vide order dated 04.06.2014 or 06.06.2024 as the case may Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta be.
Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9 OA No.12/2019 3(e). It is further stated that as per clarifications dated 06.03.2009 and 14.09.2009 issued by the Ministry of Finance, CBDT, Directorate of Income Tax (Human Resource Development) which states that :
(I) Completed 4 years of regular service as an Income Tax Officers who have completed 4 years or more of regular service in the grade on Income Tax Officers, would be entitled to the grade pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-
2 on non-functional basis on 01st January 2006.
(II) Is clear from vigilance angle.
Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the pay fixation and salary has been wrongly fixed by the respondents.
3(f). So far as, reliance placed by the applicants in respect of other Commissionerates such as Gujarat and Hyderabad, it is stated that Principal CCIT, Mumbai has no jurisdiction over other regions of the Income Tax Department. It is further stated that the benefit of pay fixation extended to the other Commissionerates such as Gujarat and Hyderabad is on different facts and circumstances. Therefore, on the basis of reply, the official respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Thereafter, no rejoinder was filed by the applicant.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 impugned action of the respondents in not extending the benefits of 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 OA No.12/2019 Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/- with effect from 25.04.2012 and the benefit of Pay Band of Rs.5,400/- with effect from April, 2016 on completion of four years of service, on the basis of Income Tax Inspectors is arbitrary and discriminatory.
6(a). While taking us through communication dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure A-3), it is submitted that the similarly situated Income Tax Officers were granted the benefits of Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- in the year 2016 after completion of four years from the promoted post and, therefore, the impugned action is discriminatory.
6(b). During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2015) 14 SCC 335 decided on 31.07.2015 to contend that in case of retrospective promotion, the employee is entitled to pay and allowances for the period for which retrospective promotion granted and principle of 'no work no pay' is not applicable in such cases. He further relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in WRT (A) No.20430/2019 in the case of Union of India and three others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Allahabad and another, decided on 16.12.2019. Further, reliance have been placed on the order of this Tribunal (CAT Mumbai Bench) Original Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Application No.82/2018 in the case of Shri Ram Narayan Vs. Union Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 11 OA No.12/2019 of India and others decided on 18.04.2018 and in the case of Mohd.
Ahmed Vs. Nizam Sugar Factory and others reported in 2005 SCC (L&S) 62 decided on 25.03.2004.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of reply vehemently submitted that in the present case, the applicants were promoted to the post of Income Tax Officers on 04.06.2014 or 05.06.2014 and against recruitment year of 2012- 2013 and actually assumed the charge of Income Tax Officers on 04.06.2014 or 06.06.2014 as the case may be and, therefore, the applicants are entitled to get the benefits including the monetary benefits from the year 2014 and taking into consideration the aforesaid date based on clarificatory OM dated 06.03.2009 and 14.03.2009, the applicants have rightly been granted the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- after completion of four years in the month of June, 2018. The claim made by the applicants from retrospective date is not permissible.
7(a). Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Virender Kumar, General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi Vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 958 decided on 25.04.1990; State of Haryana and others Vs. Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta O.P.Gupta and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2936 decided on Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 12 OA No.12/2019 12.01.1996; Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 166 decided on 28.03.1989;
the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the cases of J. Rama Rao and others Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition No.11485/2004 decided on 30.04.2009 and G.Deenadalyalan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others in W.P. No.24962/2011 decided on 25.06.2021; the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Subhash Chander Vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.21358/2008 decided on 20.12.2011.
8. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the applicants were promoted in the month of June, 2014 on the post of Income Tax Officers and they have assumed the charge of the aforesaid post on 04.06.2014 or 06.06.2014.
9. It is also not in dispute that by taking four years from the aforesaid date, the period was completed in the year 2018. In reply, a specific stand has been taken by the respondents that for the purpose of seniority and monetary benefits including all consequential benefits, the date of assumption of charge is material one, in view of the clarification issued by the CBDT. For the clarity, Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta the relevant extract of clarificatory circulars are reproduced herein- Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 13 OA No.12/2019 below :
"F.No.HRD/CM/175/15/2008-09/324 Dated 6th March 2009 Sub : Clarification on grant of Ggade pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 on non-functional basis to Income Tax Officers of Income Tax Department.
I am directed to invite your attention to Government of India, Department of Expenditure resolution No.1/1/2008-IC dated 29th August 2008 notifying acceptance of recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission wherein it was decided to grant Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 on non- functional basis to Group & officers of Income Tax Department (i.e., Income Tax Officers) after 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800 in PB-2. The relevant portion of Section II Part C. First Schedule of the notification No. GSR 622(E) dated 29th August 2008 is reproduced below :
Post Present Revised Pay Corresponding
scale scale Pay Band and
Grade Pay
Pay Grade
Band Pay
Income 7500-12000 7500-12000 PB- 2 4600
Tax 8000-13500
Officers (after 4 years) PB-2 5400
2. Clarifications have been sought by many field formations, individual officers as well as employee association (ITGOA) on how the period of 4 years is to be counted for this purpose, i.e. whether the period of 4 years of regular service is to be counted from the date of promotion in the grade of Income Tax Officer or from the date when the pay scale of Income Tax Officers was revised from Rs. 6500-10500 (pre-revised) lo Rs. 7500-12000 (pre-revised), i.e., from 21st April 2004.
3. The issue has been examined in the Board. It is hereby clarified that all Income Tax Officers, who have completed 4 years or more of regular service in the grade of Income Tax Officers as on 1st January 2006 would be entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 on non-functional basis on 1st January 2006 irrespective of the fact that pay scale of Income Tax Officers stood revised to Rs. 7500-12000 from 21st April 2004 Further, after 1st January 2006, grade pay of Rs 5400 in PB-2 on non-functional basis would be granted to an Income Tax Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Officer on completion of 4 years of regular service in the grade Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 14 OA No.12/2019 of Income Tax Officer."
"Subject : Clarification on grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-
2 on non functional basis to Group 'B' Officers in Income Tax Department.
Reference is Invited to this Directorate's letter F.No HRD/CM/175/15/2008-09/3 dated 6-03-2009, on the above subject.
2. In pursuance of Government of India, Department of Expenditure Resolution No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 29th August 2008 notifying acceptance of recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission, it was decided to grant Grade Pay of Rs.5400 In PB-2 on non-functional basis to Group B officers of Income Tax department (i.e., Income Tax Officers) after 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs.4800 In PB-2.
3. It is now clarified that the grant of the higher grade pay of Rs.5400 In PB-2 on non functional basis is not linked to vacancy and may be given retrospectively w.e.f 1-1-2006 provided the officer concerned has,
(i) completed 4 years of regular service as an Income Tax Officer, irrespective of the pay scale attached to the post, and
(ii) is clear from vigilance angle".
Officers who have not completed 4 years of regular service as an Income Tax Officer shall be given this pay scale Immediately on completion of 4 years of regular service in the post provided they are free from vigilance angle.
4. It is further clarified that the non functional Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 will not be granted to such of those Group B officers who have got the Grade Pay of Rs.4800 on up- gradation under the Assured Career Promotion Scheme.
5. This issues with the approval of Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell vide their IC U.O. No.10/1/2009-IC dated 14.09.2009."
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal GuptaKhushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 15 OA No.12/2019
10. The aforesaid factual position has not been disputed by the applicant by filing any rejoinder. Meaning thereby, promotion on the post of Income Tax Officer in June, 2014 and assumption of the charge on 04.06.2014 or 06.06.2014 is not under dispute. Therefore, claim for proper fixation and monetary benefits with effect from 25.04.2012 is not tenable. Further, so far as, the contention of the applicant based upon the letter dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure A-3) is concerned, in view of the clarification dated 06.03.2009 and 14.09.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, CBDT, the applicant cannot claim any negative parity.
11. At this stage, it is relevant here to take note of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.15 was pleased to observe as under :
"15. We are conscious that even in the absence of statutory provision, normal rule is "no work no pay". In appropriate cases, a court of law may take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The principle of "no work no pay"
would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing the appellant to work on a post of Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale. In the facts of the present case when the appellant was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with the ante-dated seniority from 01.08.1997 and maintaining his seniority alongwith his batchmates, it would be unjust to deny him higher pay and allowances in Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta the promotional position of Naib Subedar." Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 16 OA No.12/2019
12. Further, in case of Union of India and three others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.37 and 38 was pleased to observe as under :
"37. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that backwages is not automatic and it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and he has relied on judgment in Union of India Vs. K. V. Jankiraman (supra).
38. But therein Supreme Court has categorically stated that benefit of arrears may not flow automatically but will depend upon the circumstances of each case. In aforesaid authority it has been explained that reason of denial of promotion or alleged termination etc, if fault is attributable to the employer, employee will not suffer. Moreover, an employee cannot be compelled to suffer for something which is not attributable to him and at the same time Employer cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong."
13. In case of Shri Ram Narayan (supra), the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in paragraph No.15 was pleased to observe as under :
"15. Thus, from these judgements, it is clear that whether to grant back wages or not is a fact to be considered on the facts and circumstance of each case. As held in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), if it is found that the promotion was not granted because of the error on the part of the employer, back wages haye to be granted. In the case at hand, admittedly, the applicant was entitled to the promotion on the principle of own merits but he was denied the promotion on the ground that he belongs to Reserved category which is diagonally opposite to the directions issued by Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra)."
14. In all the aforesaid cases, taking note of facts and circumstances of the said case, it was observed that the benefit of arrears will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal GuptaKhushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 17 OA No.12/2019
15. On the other hand, at this stage, it is also relevant here to take not of the judgment of the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Virender Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.13 has observed as under :
"13. As regards the emoluments of nigher posts with retrospective effect, we find that the High Court had categorically denied the same to the respondents even on the basis of their claim to higher grades in Class-III posts. Further, even the entitlement. of the respondents to the higher grades in Class-III posts as per the directions of the High Court was on the basis of the quota and rota rule which in itself is both inequitable and irrational. Time and again, the rule has been criticised on account of the absurd result to which it leads, viz., the deemed appointments have to be given to the concerned employees even from the dates when they were not in service and probably when they were still in their schools and colleges. We are informed across the Bar that this is the situation even with respect to some of the respondents herein. The quota and rota rule had to be worked out in the present case from the year 1954 as per the direction of the High Court and the Tribunal. There is, therefore, neither equity nor justice in favour of the respondents to award them emoluments of the higher posts with retrospective effect. It is for this reason that we are of the view that the decisions of this Court such as in P.S. Mahal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 SCR 847 directing the payment of higher emoluments with retrospective effect on account of the deemed promotions of earlier dates will not be applicable to the facts of the present case and have to be distinguished.
It is true that the appellant-Railways had failed to give correct effect to the decision dated July 30, 1975 of the High Court in LPA No. 220 of 1972, and had kept the matter hanging till this day for no fault of the respondents. The High Court by its said decision had directed the appellant-Railways to prepare a seniority list within three months from the date of the decision, and also to proceed to make further promotions in the higher grades in accordance with law, rules and orders in force from time to time. But it is equally true that during all these years the Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta higher posts were not vacant and were manned by others and Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= the appellant-Railways had paid the incumbents concerned the 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 18 OA No.12/2019 emoluments of the said posts. The respondents have not actually worked in the said posts and, therefore, on the principle of "no work no pay" they will not be entitled to the higher salary. Hence, we give no directions in this behalf and leave it to the appellant to give such relief as they may deem fit."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of O.P. Gupta and others (supra) specifically held that unless the seniority list is prepared and finalized and promotions are made in accordance with the rules on the basis of seniority list, the question of entitlement to work in the promotional posts does not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 as under :
"6. Having regard to the above contentions, the question arises: whether the respondents are entitled to the arrears of salary? It is seen that their entitlement to work arises only when they are promoted in accordance with the Rules. Preparation of the seniority list under Rule 9 is a condition precedent for consideration and then to pass an order of promotion and posting to follow. Until that exercise is done, the respondents cannot be posted in the promotional posts. Therefore, their contention that though they were willing to work, they were not given the work after posting them in promotional posts has no legal foundation. The rival parties had agitated their right to seniority. Ultimately, this Court had directed the appellant to prepare the seniority list strictly in accordance with Rule 9 untrammeled by any other inconsistent observation of the Court or the instructions issued in contravention thereof. Since the order had become final in 1990, when the appeal had been disposed of by the Court by the above directions, the State in compliance thereof prepared the seniority list in accordance with the Rules and those directions and promotions were given to all eligible persons and postings were made accordingly on December 1, 1992. In the interregnum some had retired. As stated earlier, though the deemed date has been given as 1.1.1983, the respondents cannot legitimately claim to have worked in those posts for claiming arrears and, as a fact, they did not work even on ad hoc basis.Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 19 OA No.12/2019
7. This Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCR 92 at page 109] considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be "no pay for no work", i.e., a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of the salary. The same ratio was reiterated in Virender Kumar vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha [(1990) 3 SCC 482].
8. It is true, as pointed out by Sri Hooda, that in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman [AIR 1991 SC 2010] this Court had held that where the incumbent was willing to work but was denied the opportunity to work for no fault of him, he is entitled to the payment of arrears of salary. That is a case where the respondent was kept under suspension during departmental enquiry and sealed cover procedure was adopted because of the pendency of the criminal case. When the criminal case ended in his favour and departmental proceedings were held to be invalid, this Court held that he was entitled to the arrears of salary. That ratio has no application to the cases where the claims for promotion are to be considered in accordance with the rules and the promotions are to be made pursuant thereto.
9. In these appeals unless the seniority list is prepared and finalised and promotions are made in accordance with the Rules on the basis of the above seniority list, the question of entitlement to work in the promotional posts does not arise.
Consequently, the payment of arrears of salary does not arise since, admittedly the respondents had not worked during that period. The High Court was, therefore, wholly illegal in directing payment of arrears of salary. The order of the High Court accordingly is quashed."
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of G. Deenadayalan (supra), in paragraph No.6 has observed as under :
"6. Upon perusal of ruling 17, it is clear that the main ruling refers to Government Servants whose seniority was subsequently restored while they remained in service. In such event, it provides that the arrears of pay and allowances would Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta be admissible with effect from the date of assumption of Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 20 OA No.12/2019 charge in the higher post. In the present case, until retirement, the petitioner did not actually assume charge in the higher posts. The proviso to ruling 17 refers to Government servants whose names were not considered for promotion on account of pending charges until retirement, but who were exonerated of such charges after they attained the age of superannuation. As regards such persons, it provides that the pay would be fixed notionally on the date of retirement on a par with their junior, but that such fixation is only for purposes of pension and other terminal monetary benefits. Thus, the proviso to Ruling 17 of FR 27 squarely applies to the petitioner. Moreover, it is clear from Ruling 17 of FR 27 that the petitioner would be entitled to pension and other terminal monetary benefits based on the notional fixation of pay in the higher posts, but not to salary and other allowances that would be payable to those who discharged duties and functioned in the promoted post."
18. Therefore, taking note of the aforesaid judgments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances of the present case are required to be seen. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicants are promoted on the post of Income Tax Officers vide order dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure R-1) and proforma promotion vide order 06.06.2014 (Annexure R-2). It is also not in dispute that they have assumed their charge on the aforesaid post in the month of June, 2018 and, therefore, the claim made by the applicants for arrears and fixation with effect from 25.04.2012 is not tenable.
19. Further, from the date of assumption of the charge of the promotional post of Income Tax Officers in the month of June, 2014, they have completed four years of regular service in the month of Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta June, 2018 and, therefore, they have been granted benefits of Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 21 OA No.12/2019 Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- in Pay Band II rightly as per the circulars / clarifications dated 06.03.2009 and 14.09.2009.
20. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, no ground is made out for interference in the present Original Application and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
21. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(UMESH GAJANKUSH) (SHRI KRISHNA)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
kmg*
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
Khushboo
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b 92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63 9, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.11 14:49:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0