Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Vivekeshwar Sharan Varshney vs Income Tax Department on 11 February, 2025
1
RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.170/00005/2025
IN
OA.NO.170/50/2025
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Vivekeshwar Sharan Varshney, Aged about 45 years,
S/o Shri Devi Sharan Gupta, Income Tax Officer (HQ) O/o Pr.CIT-3,
BMTC Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
2. Samir Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Sri Bhanu Dutt Singh,
Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward 2(3),
HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road, Bengaluru-560032.
3. Deepak Chandola, aged about 44 years,
S/o Sri Chitramani Chandola, Income Tax Officer,
Ward-4(2)3, BMTC Building, Koramangala,
Bengaluru, 560095
4. Anil Kumar, aged about 42 years, S/o Sri Sivanandan Kumar Sinha,
Income Tax Officer (IT), Ward 2(1), BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
5. Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Sri Om Prakash Jalan,
Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Unit-3(1),
Central Revenue Building (annexe) Bengaluru-560045.
6. Neeraj Agarwal, aged about 42 years, S/o Sri Arun Agarwal,
Income Tax Officer (IT), Ward-1(2),
BMTC Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
7. Abhishek Pandey, aged about 43 years, S/o Sri Deshdeepak Pandey,
Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1,
Unity Building, Bengaluru, 560002.
8. Vikas Chandra, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Ramachandra Prasad,
Income Tax Officer (Inv.), Unit-3(1),
Central Revenue Building(annexe), Bengaluru-560045.
9. Sunil Kumar Yadav, aged about 45 years, S/o Sri Ram Kumar Yadav,
Income Tax Officer (AU)-2(3)(3), BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
10. Krishna Kumar, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Rameshwar Prasad,
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.02.19
09:38:19+05'30'
2
RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench
Income Tax Officer (AU)-3(2)(2), BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
11. Sarbjit Kaur, aged about 44 years, W/o Sri Baljit Singh,
Income Tax Officer (AU)-1(1)(3), BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
12. Sandeep Kumar, aged about 41years, S/o Sri Kali Ram,
Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
13. Shambhu Keshari, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Kailash Keshri,
Income Tax Officer (AU)-1(2)(4) BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
14. Dhiman Narayan Sinha, aged about 46 years, S/o Sri B N Sinha,
Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2),
BMTC Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru -560095.
15. Dinesh Kumar Dubey, aged about 39 years, S/o Sri Ramayan Dubey,
Income Tax Officer (HQ) (Tech-2) O/o Pr. CCIT Karnataka & Goa,
C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bengaluru -560001.
16. Rajiv Kumar, aged about 45 years, S/o Sri Vishwanath Prasad Choudhary,
Income Tax Officer (VU)-1(1)(6), BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095.
17. Amar Kumar Tudu, aged about 40 years, S/o Sri Kanhaiya Lal Tudu,
Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru -560095.
18. Pramod Kumar, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Bachan Ray,
Income Tax Officer (I&CI), Aayakar Bhawan, Sedam Road,
Kalaburgi-585105.
19. Shailendra Kumar Choubey, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri S S N Choubey,
Income Tax Officer, O/o Pr. CCIT Karnataka & Goa Region,
C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bengaluru -560001.
20. Amit Kumar, aged about 42 years, S/o Sri S P Singh,
Income Tax Officer (AU)-1(2)(3), BMTC Building, Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560095.
21. Suraj Lama, aged about 42 years, S/o Sri Sonam Lama,
Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-3(3), HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road,
Bengaluru-560032.
22. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, aged about 45 Year,
S/o Shivnandan Prasad Gupta,
Income Tax Officer (I&CI)-2, Unity Building, Bengaluru, 560002.
23. Rakesh Kumar, aged about 44 years, S/o Sri Nagendra Kumar,
Income Tax Officer (Under Deputation), No. 516B-2,
Ganga Block, National Games Village, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560047.
24. Ram Niwas, aged about 42 years, S/o Sri S.C. Vidyarthi,
Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), BMTC Building,
Koramangala, Bengaluru -560095.
25. Yogesh Dubey, aged about 37 years, S/o Sri S.S. Dubey,
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.02.19
09:38:19+05'30'
3
RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), BMTC Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru -560095.
26. Tarun Kumar Sharma, aged about 38 years, S/o Sri Dashrath Sharma,
Income Tax Officer (PRO). O/o Pr. CCIT Karnataka & Goa,
C.R. Building, Queen's Road, Bengaluru -560001
27. Deepak Kumar, aged about 39 years, S/o Sri Baleshwar Singh,
Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-1(2), HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road,
Bengaluru-560032. .....
Review Applicants
(By Advocate Shri.T.C.Gupta)
Vs.
1. Union of India through Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Karnataka & Goa Region, C. R. Building, Queens Road,
Bengaluru-560001. ....
Review Respondents
ORDER
(By Circulation)
PER:DR.SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. This Review Application has been filed against the order of this Tribunal dated 23.1.2025 in O.A 170/50/2025 wherein the review applicants request for interim relief, was conditionally rejected (limited to not being given ex-parte) by holding that the impugned order of the respondents is a very detailed speaking order and as the said order is passed based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment and hence it does not deserve the merit of getting an interim relief of stay without hearing the other side respondents department.
2. The applicant mentions that the Tribunal, in its order dated 23.1.2025, has held that the order dated is a very detailed speaking order. The order is not only very detailed, but it is more than very detailed, being an order of more than 150 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.02.19 09:38:19+05'30' 4 RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench pages, including annexures. But a very detailed order and a speaking order are not the same. Speaking order means an order which is self-explanatory, the order based on reason and logic. As discussed, the order dated 31.12.2024, allegedly based on K Meghachandra is in clear violation of the Tribunal and the High Court order based on K Meghachandra. It also means that the interpretation of K Meghachandra's decision, made by the Tribunal in order dated 17.1.2023, the High Court in decision dated 13.6.2024, was wrong and incorrect, but the interpretation made by the respondents in order dated 31.12.2024 is correct. This also means that the respondents have overriding power over the Tribunal and the High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal order dated 23.1.2025 is apparently fallacious, against the apparent facts and not based on the facts of the case, but for some other reasons.
3. We have carefully gone through the records and perused the documents.
4. Clearly, the Review Applicant has not understood the purport of the order as the conditional denial of the stay does not mean denial of any merit of the matter and as the respondents have to run their day-to-day activities and manage their cadre and certainly their decisions are subject to the final order in this case, and when the case is subjudice and before the Tribunal, it has to be examined in detail. But as clearly stated in the said order, the approach of the applicants in emphatically putting before the Tribunal to grant them an interim stay without hearing the other side respondent department was not meritorious and on that ground the stay was denied. The order of this Tribunal dated 23.1.2025 is self- speaking and we have examined the whole records. As the said order only denied interim stay in the absence of the respondent, it clearly meant that if need arose, SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.02.19 09:38:19+05'30' 5 RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench it was open to the applicant to press for the said relief of stay when the respondents were on boarded and were before this Court. We do not find in the Review Application of the applicants also anything which may require the review of the order as the scope of review is very limited.
5. Further, we note that in paragraph 6 of the revision petition, the review applicants mention that 'while hearing the case on 23.1.2025, the arguments of the applicants counsel were still going on, the Bench told that it will decide the case in chamber, but in chamber the Bench never called the counsel. The order was neither pronounced nor reserved in court, how and under which law the Bench decided the case in chamber is only known to the Bench. This is a case of open breach of the principals of natural justice'.
This is not factually correct. The Court had heard the learned counsel for the review applicants sufficiently and it is a fact that in any case neither of the parties ever satisfied with the sufficiency of the time before the court. There are other cases lined up for the day which competes for the time before the Tribunal. The daily order sheet of the day 23.1.2025, which is also self-explanatory, reads as follows:
" This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, claiming the following reliefs:
1). That in view of the facts and grounds enumerated it is humbly prayed that the respondent No. 3, order dated 31.12.2024 and consequential seniority list, Ann. A/1, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents directed not to disturb the seniority position of the applicants as decided in the seniority list dated 28.7.2015.
II). Any other appropriate order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the applicants. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.02.19 09:38:19+05'30' 6 RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench Along with the reliefs, interim relief has been prayed for as follows:
" It is humbly prayed that the operation of the respondents' order dated 31.12.2024 may kindly be stayed till final decision of the OA. The applicants are having prima-facie case and balance of convenience in their favour. If no stay is granted it would cause irreparable loss to the applicants. If stay is granted no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. As per the revised seniority list the applicants have lost seniority by three to seven years."
Shri.T.C.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants pressed for ex-parte interim relief and accordingly he was heard. We have gone through the entire records and carefully examined the impugned order No.F.No.212(22)/NRP/2024-25/Pr.CCIT dated 31.12.2024 which the applicants want to stay. The subject of the same is "Publication of Final Seniority list - Revision of Inter-se seniority between Direct Recruits and Promotees in compliance to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019 of K.Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors. and subsequent instructions by DOPT & CBDT, New Delhi-Reg." It is a very detailed speaking order and we are of the considered opinion that as the said order is passed on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, it does not deserve the merit of getting an interim relief of stay without hearing the other side respondents department. Considering the same we pass the following orders:-
The interim relief prayed for staying operation of order of the respondents dated 31.12.2024 is hereby rejected as in any way when on merit the case may be heard, if there is any case at all for the applicants, they may get appropriate order in their favour as it is a case of seniority list.
Issue notice to the respondents, returnable by 27.2.2025."
Accordingly, it may be a case that the applicants' counsel may not understood what was discussed in the Court by the Bench that the order sheet will be dictated in chamber.
6. In paragraph 7 of the Revision Application, the applicants submit that 'the Bench has stated that the counsel pressed for ex-parte interim relief... the statement is apparently fallacious. Normally interim stay is decided in first hearing in absence of the respondents. Therefore, to highlight ex-parte is not justified.' SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.02.19 09:38:19+05'30' 7 RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench The applicant must understand the complex predicament in the case and the context of the impugned order in the said O.A which is based on earlier various orders of the Courts and they are themselves self-speaking. The Tribunal has only expressed that without hearing the other party in the case, interim stay cannot be granted at this stage and we are of the considered opinion that for hearing on stay also in this particular case because of its unusual facts and circumstances, hearing the other party who have to manage their own cadre and run day to day working of the Department is very much required.
7. In paragraph 8 of the R.A, the applicants say that 'these facts show that the whole of the order is based on imagination and not on records and is apparently mistaken, requiring review'.
This is not a ground as the applicants themselves are only making bland statements, but not putting forth any grounds which may be a valid ground before the Tribunal under the Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with provisions of the rule 1 Order 47 of the CPC under which the review of the order of Tribunal has to be done.
8. Regarding merits, the review of the order of this Tribunal is done under the section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with provisions of the rule 1 Order 47 of the CPC which states as under: -
"1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a). by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b). by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c). by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.02.19 09:38:19+05'30' 8 RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."
9. It is noted that the scope of reviewing the order of this Tribunal is limited to the grounds as mentioned in the Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. A review application can be entertained on the ground of error apparent on the face of record or new facts / matter which was not known at the time of hearing of the O.A. In the case of State of West Bengal And Others v. Kamal Sengupta and another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following factors to be kept in mind for review:-
"(i). The power of the Tribunal to review is akin to order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114.
(ii). The grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 to be followed and not otherwise.
(iii). "that any other sufficient reasons" in order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv). An error which is not self evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record.
(v). An erroneous decision cannot be corrected under review.
(vi). An order cannot be reviewed on the basis of subsequent decision / judgment of coordinate Larger bench or a superior Court.
(vii). The adjudication has to be with regard to material which were available at the time of initial decision subsequent event / developments are not error apparent.
(viii). Mere discovery of new / important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party also has to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced earlier before the Tribunal."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar and others Vs. Rambhai and others - (2007) 15 SCC 513 has dealt with the question of review and its maintainability and has held as under: -
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.02.19 09:38:19+05'30' 9 RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench "6. The limitation on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.
11. In the case of Inder Chand Jain (Dead) through Lrs, Vs. Motilal (dead) through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"..10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [AIR 2000 SC 1650], this Court held :
"56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise."
12. Perusal of the grounds mentioned in the Review Application indicates that the grounds mentioned in the Review Application have been considered at the time of passing the order dated 23.1.2025 and no fresh ground as required under the law has been made out in the Review Application and no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out.
13. In view of the above, we find that there is no case for reviewing the order of this Tribunal dated 23.1.2025 at all and if the applicants are still aggrieved, they can approach before the appropriate forum.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.02.19 09:38:19+05'30' 10 RA.No.5/2025/CAT/Bangalore Bench
14. Consequently and for other reasons as given above, the Review Application No.5/2025 is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- sd/-
(DR.SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/sv/
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.02.19
09:38:19+05'30'