Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Surya Chattopadhyay vs Union Of India on 20 October, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 608/2010
MA 433/2010
New Delhi this the 20th day of October, 2010
Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A)
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
1. Surya Chattopadhyay
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Hqrs. (TDS), Kolkata
2. Subhash Ch. Mukhopadhyay
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
HQRS-VIII, Kolkata
3. S.B. Das
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Hqtrs. CCIT Durgapur
Dist. Barwan (W.B.)
4. D.K. Deb
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 16, Bamboovilla, 3rd Floor,
Kolkata
5. Sushanta Kumar Sinha
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Hqrs. 19, Kolkata
6. M.S. Raj
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation)
Kolkata
7. Parthasarathi Datta
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
HQRS-III, Kolkata
8. Braja Kishore Das
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Hqrs. 21, Kolkata
9. Kamal Ranjan Mondal
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 23, Bamboovilla, 9th Floor,
Kolkata
10. Ajit Kr. Khan
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Training),
Direct Taxes Regional Training Institute,
Kolkata
11. K.K. Das
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 43, Kolkata
12. Nihar Dutta Gupta
Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemtion)
Kolkata
13. M.L. Roy Burman
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Hqrs. To CCIT Jalpaiguri,
Dist. Jalpaiguri (W.B.)
14. Amanulla Ansari,
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Retd)
Kolkata Applicants
(Through Shri Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. counsel with Shri Sujit K. Singh,
Advocates)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Through the Chairman,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110001 Respondents
(Through Shri V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
The Applicants, who are Deputy Commissioners of Income Tax (DCITs), are aggrieved that they have not been considered for promotion from 01.01.2005 for the post of DCIT although the persons junior to them or similarly situated like the Applicants have been considered and granted the senior scale and promoted to the grade of DCIT. The following reliefs have been sought:
(i) Pass an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Senior Scale) / Deputy Commissioner w.e.f. 1.1.2005 and / or from a date prior to the date his juniors including Sh. SK Shukla (Srl. No. 00768 in the Seniority List / Civil List 2006 of the Indian Revenue Service) were granted promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Senior Scale) / Deputy Commissioner with all consequential benefits of pay, allowances and seniority.
2. The learned senior counsel for the Applicants would contend that the matter is squarely covered by the judgement of this Tribunal in OA number 2107 of 2008 with OA number 2358 of 2008, Subhash Sahni and others Vs. Union of India and another, decided on 30.06.2009. This was upheld by the Honourable Delhi High Court by judgement dated 27.07.2010 in Writ Petitions (C) number 13096 and 13104 of 2009. The aforesaid decision in Subhash Sahni (supra) was a fall out of the judgement in OA number 502 of 2004, S K Shukla Vs. Union of India and another, decided by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal on 29.03.2005. During the course of arguments it could not be disputed by the learned counsel defending the Respondents that the instant OA is covered by the judgement in Subhash Sahni (supra). However, the learned counsel for the Respondents opposed the cause of the Applicants on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was contended that the Applicants were seeking seniority from the year 2005, which would have the effect of unsettling the settled seniority. It was contended that the judgement in another case cannot be treated as a ground for extending the period of limitation. The onus lies on the Applicants to show that the Original Application has been filed within the period of limitation prescribed in the aforementioned Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
3. There is no force in the argument of the Respondents that the OA is barred by limitation. The judgement of this Tribunal in the case of S K Shukla (supra) was upheld by the Honourable High Court of Rajasthan on 01.11.2006. Several similarly situated persons represented to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the second Respondent herein, for similar consideration as in the case of Sh. S K Shukla. By a communication dated 23.01.2007, the second Respondent informed all the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as follows:
Sub: Representation from the officers of the level of DCIT for change of effective date for grant of Sr. Scale reg.
Sir, I am directed to say that the Board is receiving representations from the various officers for antedating grant of Senior Scale. It appears that such requests are being made on the analogy of grant of Sr. Scale to Shri S.K. Shukla.
2. In this connection it is informed that antedating the grant of Sr. Scale to Shri S.K. Shukla has been done in compliance to the CAT Jaipur Benchs Order dated 29.3.2005 read with the Honble Tribunals further order dated 22.11.06 in Contempt Petition No.59 of 2005 in OA No. 502 of 2004 and subject to the outcome of the SLP filed by this Department in the Honble Supreme Court against the order of Rajasthan High Court and without it being taken in any way prejudicial to our stand in the SLP.
3. Therefore, till the matter is decided by the Honble Supreme Court, no action on such representation can be considered.
4. Above position may please be brought to the notice of all concerned and no representation the matter forwarded to the Board till the same is decided by the Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the SLP by order dated 26.02.2007. Thereafter, Subhash Sahni and others filed OA number 2107 of 2008 seeking promotion to the posts of DCIT with effect from 01.01.2005 on the ground that they were senior to Sh. S K Shukla. The OA was allowed. The Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association made representations, inter alia, for correcting the seniority of the DCITs on the basis of the above mentioned cases. A meeting was held between the aforesaid Association and the second Respondent on 31.08.2009. It was recorded in the minutes of the meeting that the second Respondent was in touch with the Ministry of Law and proposed to approach the Honourable High Court against the judgement of this Tribunal. Another meeting had been held earlier on 22.07.2009, in which also it was recorded that the matter was being continuously followed up with the Ministry of Law and the Department of Personnel and Training. Obviously, therefore, the matter was under consideration of the Respondents and no final decision had been taken. The Applicants were led to believe that a final view would be taken in due course of time. In view of this the OA cannot be said to be barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
4. In the light of the above, same directions have to be given in this OA as in the OAs number 2107 and 2358 of 2008. The Respondents are directed to consider the Applicants for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Senior Scale)/DCIT with effect from 01.01.2005. These directions would be complied with as early as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
( Meera Chhibber ) ( L.K. Joshi ) Member (J) Vice Chairman (A) /dkm/