Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Krishna Prasanna Mandal vs Income Tax on 12 July, 2018
1 WORARY1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA BENCH Date of Order: 12.07,2018 No. OA. 350/564/2011 MA. 350/253/2011 Present: Hon'ble Ms; Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
1. Sri Krishna Prasanna Mandal, son of Sarat Ch. Mandal, aged about 39 years,.working as Data Processing Assistant, Grade - A, of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Com-
3rd puter Operation), Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- 700 069, residing at 3A, Ananda Bhawan, 10/1), Ananda Palit Road, P. 0. & P.S. EntaUy, Kolkata- 700 014.
2. Sri iyotirrno.G.bpsh, son of Parimal Kanti Ghosh, as Data Processing st e-Qct.ce of the Commissioner of rd (nc u\Qperation) 3 Floor, Aa - , -7Dwringhee Square, K resin at Mahamayatala, OSas ani, r Sonarpur, P.O. Garia, .....Applicants.
-versus-
Union of India through the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi- 110 001.
The Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi- 110 001.
The Chairman, Cenfral Board of Direct Taxes, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi- 110 001.
The Director of Income Tax (Systems), ARA Centre, Ground Floor, E-2, ihandewalan Extension, New Delhi- 1.10 055.
25. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata 1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- 700 069.
.... RepondefltS.
For the Applicant : Mr. S.K. Dutta, Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. L.K. Chatterjee, Counsel Mr. M.K. Ghara, Counsel ORDER (Oraji Per Ms. Bidisha Banerlee, Judicial Member:
Heard both.
2. On 22,07.2014 it was observed as under:
rieved by the fact that they "it appears that th LA .rad- n terms of Recruitment Rules have been placed at e'\the Principal Bench. Grade (RR in short), 1995 v1hh 1' gh( n tn\s of RR of 1995 and after B was operated in promulgation of th4 cru 20 }vhereafter the two grades merged, as it was 'r t thI.b90 Rules) they were not V treated as merged g\oL s of erstwhile Recruitment Rules, 1990 which was\Q\ h ad joined. They claim to be designated as ProgramrTi perator with no separation in Grade --A and Grade-B. We find from the Recruitment Rules, 1995 that although Grade-A and Grade-B was separated other attributes including entry qualification and experience were same. As such after quashing of the RR of 1995, we find that no justification in continuing to place similar circumstanced employees some as Grade-A in lower scale and some as Grade-B in higher scale.
We also find that on 13.01.2014, the matter was referred to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax by the Director of Income Tax (Systems) stating that inter-se seniority dispute between Grade-A and Grade-B recruited under 1995 Rules has to be resolved. It is seen that the dispute is still pending and it has been sent to the Ministry for relalxation of the condition so that Grade-A can be treated as Grade-B. A. Let learned counsel for respondents is directed to take instruction whether aforesaid dispute is resolved that if so what matter.
5. List on 11.08.2014."3
handed over a compilation which includes
3. Ld. Counsel for r espondents has the documents dated 20.10.2014, para 3 thereof reads as under:
"para 3: We also find that on 13.01.2014, the matter was referred to missioner of Income Tax by the Director of Income Tax the Chief Com (Systems) stating that interSeSefl10fltY dispute between Grade-A and Grade-B recruited under 1995 Rules has to be resolved. It is seen that the dispute is still pending and it has been sent to the Ministry for relaxation of the condition so that Grade-A can be treated as Grade-B."
bmitted at the bar that the matter has been Ld. Counsel for respondents su referred to the Ministry and the issue is pending before the Ministry since 2015 and no decision has been taken as yet.
in our considered opinion unless a decision is taken by the Ministry we are interseSen1oritY of Grade- te tb not in a position to adjudic(LO) ith a direction upon the ccordiflgVe A & Grade-B. ly as possible preferably Respondent No. 4 to rest is order and to pass an the re within 6 months from t T4 ' applicant.
appropriate order in regard to It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of this case and therefore all points are kept open for appropriate consideration by the respondent authorities.
Accordin,&V, OA would stand disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.
(Bidisha Baerjee) (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) Member (i) Member (A) ME