Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Harminder Singh vs Income Tax Department on 18 November, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(I) M.A. No. 754/2025
in
O.A.No.182/2023
Reserved on: 11.11.2025
Pronounced on:18.11.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Rajinder Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh aged about 56 years,
r/o Village Shahpur, District Patiala. (Sr. Tax
Assistant/UDC)
2. Jagdish Singh s/o Ram Singh, aged about 53 years, R/o
Ward no.7, Rajgarh Road, Near Thodo Ground, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh (Sr. Tax Assistant /UDC)
3. Ashok Kumar S/o Guljari Lal, aged about 57 years, r/o
House no. 73-A, Hem Bhag, VTC, Patiala (Sr. Tax
Assistant/UDC)
4. Mohinder Singh Mahal S/o Gurdev Singh Mahal aged
about 52 years, r/o H. No. 15-16, Flat No.8, Street No.1,
Rose Avenue, Kheri Gujjran Road, Patiala. (Tax
Assistant/LDC)
.......Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Rishav Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Admin),
North West Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17-
EChandigarh.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30'
2
3. Commissioner Income Tax-II/Range-IV, Ludhiana.
4. Commissioner Income Tax-I/Range-I, Ludhiana.
5. Commissioner Income Tax-II/Range-III, Ludhiana.
6. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Range-7, Ludhiana.
7. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Solan Range,
Solan, Himachal Pradeshy.
........Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Sh. Pankaj
Khurana)
(II) M.A. No. 60/755/2025
in
O.A. No.98/2023
Hardeep Singh, S/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh, age 52 years,
presently working as Tax Assistant, 0/0 Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Amritsar (R/o Village
Jalalpur, PO Sadharpur, Patra, District Patiala, Punjab).
......Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Rishav Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to Government
of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North
West Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh-
160017.
........................Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Sh. Pankaj
Khurana)
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30'
3
(III) M.A. No. 756/2025
in
O.A. No.97/2023
Harminder Singh, S/o Sh. Harchand Singh, age 61 years,
R/o House No. 22, Friends Colony, Patiala, Punjab.
......Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Rishav Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to Government
of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North
West Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh-
160017.
........................Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Sh. Pankaj
Khurana)
(IV) M.A. No. 758/2025
in
O.A. No.95/2023
1. Lakhvir Singh, S/o Sh. Gurinder Singh, age 56 years,
presently working as Office Superintendent, 0/0 Additional
Commissioner, Range-I, Amritsar Maqbool Road, Income
Tax Office, Amritsar, Punjab). (R/o
2. Ranjeev Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Uggar Sain Jain, age 62 years,
R/o House No.3765, Near Fort Gate, Peer Khana Wali Gali,
Bathinda, Punjab.
3. Harvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh, age 58 years,
R/o House No.27, OMAXE City, Goniana Road, Bathinda,
Punjab.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30'
4
4. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh, age 57 years, R/o
Village Balahri Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib,
Punjab.
5. Novinder Singh S/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh, age 56 years, R/o
No.230, Near Baba Paramanand De Kutte, Moranwali,
Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab.
6. Narinder Singh Josan S/o Sh. Jagir Singh, age 59 years, R/o
VPO Bakhora Kalan, tenagaga, District Sangrur, Punjab.
7. Ranbir Singh s/o Sh. Ram Gopal Singh, age 52 years, R/o
House No.40, Phase-II, Officer Enclave, Patiala, Punjab.
8. Gurdeep Singh s/o Sh. Baldev Singh, age 56 years, R/o
House No.444, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala, Punjab.
9. Sunita W/o Nirmal Kumar, age 56 years, R/o House No.275,
Sector-94, Mohali, Punjab.
10. Vijay Rani W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, age 53 years, R/o House
No.149-B, Street No.3/3, Raman Enclave, Ludhiana, Punjab.
11. Bimla Devi W/o Sh. Inder Singh Gautam, age 54 years, R/o
2959, New Housing Board Colony, Panipat, Haryana.
......Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Rishav Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to Government
of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North
West Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh-
160017.
........................Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Sh. Pankaj
Khurana)
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30'
5
(V) M.A. No. 805/2025
in
O.A. No.96/2023
Vikram Singh Mehrok, S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, age 55
years, presently working as Income Tax Officer, (VU) Ward-
1 (1)(2), O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (UV)-1,
Ayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana-141001 (R/o House
No. 1651, Sector 61 (Phase 7), SAS Nagar, Mohali.
......Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Rishav Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to Government
of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North
West Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh-
160017.
........................Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Sh. Pankaj
Khurana)
ORDER
Per: HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. All the above Execution Applications are being taken up together as the facts and order to be executed is similar in all these cases. All these Execution Applications have been filed praying that the order dated 10.04.2024 based on order dated NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30' 6 28.11.2020 upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 420 of 2022 decided on 10.03.2022 in bunch of petitions and further upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 17898 of 2022 decided on 02.02.2023 be got implemented in its letter and spirit.
2. We require giving a quick glance to the general facts here. For the sake of convenience, we are taking facts from Execution Application No. 754/2025.
3. The applicant was appointed to various posts under Respondent No. 2, maintained satisfactory service, qualified the departmental examination, and was confirmed as Inspector. A CBI case was later registered alleging that he had secured employment on the basis of a forged SSC nomination letter. Although the applicant replied to a show-cause notice, the department did not issue any charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and terminated his services without holding a regular inquiry.
4. Along with the applicant, 25 other officials were also terminated and they challenged their orders before the Tribunal. Their termination was set aside on 29.04.2003 with directions to hold an inquiry. Instead of holding such inquiry in the applicant's case, the department sought certain documents through an NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30' 7 affidavit, which he submitted, but again terminated him without following Rule 14.
5. The matter reached the High Court, which directed the applicant and similarly placed employees to approach the appropriate forum after completion of criminal proceedings. The applicant's conviction was finally set aside on 23.05.2022, his case being covered by the decision dated 10.05.2016 involving similarly situated employees.
6. After acquittal, the applicant issued a legal notice seeking reinstatement. His OA was allowed by the Tribunal on 10.04.2024, directing reinstatement with notional benefits and actual benefits from the date of joining. A copy of this order is annexed as Annexure EA-1. In earlier similar cases decided on 28.11.2020 and upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court on 10.03.2022 and 02.02.2023, the employees had already been reinstated on 02.03.2023.
7. Since the respondents did not reinstate him despite the Tribunal's order, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No. 123 of 2024. Only thereafter he was reinstated and pay-fixation orders were issued. The contempt petition was closed on 18.11.2024. Copies of the reinstatement order dated 11.11.2024 and pay-fixation order dated 27/29.01.2025 are annexed as Annexures EA-2 and EA-3.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30' 8
8. The reinstatement order stated that notional benefits would not include monetary arrears and promotion. The applicant's pay was fixed at the level of UDC/Sr. TA, ignoring the fact that he had already qualified the promotional examination before termination and that his juniors were promoted in the meantime. The applicant seeks only notional seniority and notional promotion and not monetary benefits. The Tribunal's order has been interpreted as limiting notional benefits merely to reinstatement, which is contrary to law.
9. Under judicial interpretation, including FR 54-A (Annexure EA-
4), a person reinstated after acquittal is entitled to notional seniority and promotion. No order regarding seniority has been passed by the respondents. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria (2000) and K. Madhavan v. UOI (1987) held that ―regular service‖ does not require actual physical service when an employee is illegally kept out of service. The respondents cannot narrow the scope of the Tribunal's order dated 10.04.2024, which they have not challenged and which has attained finality. Reliance is also placed on K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjeev Chadha, 2025 INSC 110.
10. The applicant therefore seeks a direction to the respondents to fully implement the Tribunal's order dated 10.04.2024 NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30' 9 (Annexure EA-1) by granting notional seniority, notional promotion and corresponding notional pay fixation.
11. The respondents have filed a written statement to the above Execution Application wherein it is stgated that the applicant filed the execution application alleging non-compliance of the Tribunal's order dated 10.04.2024, but the department states that full compliance has already been made and the application is mala fide.
12. After the Tribunal's earlier order of 28.11.2020, the department filed writ petitions which were dismissed on 10.03.2022 by the High Court, directing reinstatement with only notional benefits. SLPs filed thereafter were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 02.02.2023 after an interim stay order dated 30.09.2022.
13. A committee was formed on 10.02.2023 and submitted its report on 14.02.2023 recommending reinstatement with notional benefits. The applicants were reinstated on 02.03.2023, and again in compliance of the order dated 10.04.2024, the applicant in this case was reinstated in November 2024 with notional benefits only.
14. The reply clarifies that notional benefits do not include arrears, promotions, MACP, or seniority, as these are actual benefits granted only on the basis of actual service. Reliance NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30' 10 is placed on judgments such as XEN (Mach.) v. Adam Ibrahim, J.K. Synthetics Ltd., R. Prabha Devi, and M. Bhaskar.
15. The service history states that 25 persons, including the applicant, were appointed between 1992-94 on the basis of forged SSC nomination letters. CBI registered FIRs on 26.02.1999 and 31.03.2004. SSC confirmed on 16.07.2004 that the roll numbers were fake, which led to terminations in 2004. They were convicted on 12.01.2015 but acquitted by the High Court on 23.05.2022, leading to the filing of fresh OAs.
16. The Tribunal's order dated 10.04.2024 again directed reinstatement with only notional benefits and actual benefits only from the date of joining. A similar contempt matter decided on 13.08.2024 held that reinstatement with notional benefits amounts to full compliance.
17. The reply also states that FR 54-A does not apply because the Tribunal has expressly denied back wages and any actual benefits prior to joining. Promotions or seniority cannot be granted notionally, especially after more than 20 years of non-service, and depend on experience, APARs, and vigilance clearance. Thus, the department concludes that it has fully complied with the order dated 10.04.2024 and NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30' 11 requests dismissal of Execution/M.A. No. 060/754/2025 as misconceived.
18. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the respective law points cited by the different counsels for the parties.
19. The applicants relied upon order dated 16.09.2025 passed on similar cases leading being MA No. 060/1990/2023 and four other connected MAs wherein it was held as follows:-
―18. The Tribunal's order dated 28.11.2020 specifically granted reinstatement with notional benefits. Judicial pronouncements have consistently clarified that such notional benefits are not confined to a mere entry into service but include continuity for seniority, promotional avenues and career progression, though actual monetary benefits are confined to the post-rejoining period. In Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria (2000 (2) SCT 510, paras 16-
18), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that notional promotion counts as regular appointment from the deemed date. Similarly, in Anant Deep Singh v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2024 (10) SCALE 377, para 21), it was ruled that once termination is set aside, the employee is deemed in service for all purposes.
19. The principle was reaffirmed in Central Bank of India v.
Dragendra Singh Jordan (2022 (3) SCT 846, para 22), where the Court held that wrongful dismissal cannot deprive an employee of seniority and promotional rights. In K. Sambha Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha (2025 ALL SCR 555, para 30), the Supreme Court directed retrospective promotion with full benefits after a penalty was quashed. Likewise, J.P.S. Bhandari v. B.B. Mishra, DG CISF (2004 (3) SCT 56, paras 17-21) held that ―no work no pay‖ does not apply when the employee was willing to work but was unlawfully kept out of service.
20. High Courts have also endorsed this settled position: in Lajpat Rai v. UOI (Law Finder ID 692910), notional promotion and pensionary benefits were allowed when juniors were promoted; in M.S. Gill v. Shri Shaktikant Das (CAT Jabalpur, Law Finder ID 1308100, paras 14-16), the Tribunal held that notional promotion cannot be denied if juniors had advanced; in Shri Babaji Sahu v. Bhupendra Sharma (Orissa HC DB, Law Finder ID 1880384, paras 6-9), notional benefits were interpreted to include promotion, pension, and increments. The Orissa High Court in Ramakanta Parija v. Deputy Chief Mining Engineer (W.P.(C) 7990/2016, decided 14.02.2022, para 16) similarly directed NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30' 12 notional promotion and consequential benefits. The Patna High Court in Vijay Shankar Sharma v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 17500/2008, decided 07.01.2016) allowed notional promotion, ACP and actual benefits from rejoining.
21. In light of these binding and persuasive authorities, the plea of the respondents that notional benefits are confined only to reinstatement without seniority or promotion cannot be accepted. Their reliance on J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and similar rulings is misplaced, as those cases concerned automatic back wages, not continuity of service for career progression.
22. The dismissal of the contempt petition dated 13.08.2024 does not foreclose the applicants' rights. Contempt proceedings only determine whether there was wilful disobedience, not the complete scope of execution. Execution is a substantive stage to ensure the parent judgment is fully implemented.
23. In these circumstances, we find merit in the Execution Applications.
The applicants are entitled to be treated in continuous service for all notional purposes, including seniority, promotion, ACP/MACP and pay fixation, with arrears of actual salary and allowances from 09.02.2021 onwards, as already directed.
24. Accordingly, all these Execution Applications are allowed. The respondents are directed to comply with this Tribunal's order dated 28.11.2020 by granting notional benefits of service between termination and deemed reinstatement, including seniority, eligibility for promotion, ACP/MACP, and fixation of pay at par with juniors, with arrears of salary and allowances from 09.02.2021 onwards, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.
25. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We expect respondents to ensure strict compliance of this order without any further delay.
26. All pending MAs are also disposed of accordingly.
27. A copy of this order be placed in all connected files.‖
20. In the present batch of Execution Applications, the core issue for determination is whether the respondents have fully complied with the mandate of the Tribunal's order dated 10.04.2024, read with the earlier order dated 28.11.2020 as affirmed successively by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicants have NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30' 13 demonstrated that while reinstatement has been effected, the consequential notional benefits flowing from continuity of service--particularly notional seniority, notional promotion and corresponding pay fixation--have not been extended, thereby leaving the order only partially implemented.
21. The denial of these notional service-related benefits amounts to an impermissible narrowing of the Tribunal's original directions, which have attained finality and have been judicially interpreted in similar matters, including MA No. 060/1990/2023 and connected MAs, to unequivocally include continuity of service for all notional purposes. The respondents' stand that notional benefits are confined only to reinstatement cannot be sustained in view of the consistent line of authorities cited, wherein it has been held that an employee illegally kept out of service is entitled to notional progression in the service hierarchy, even though actual monetary benefits commence only upon rejoining.
22. Execution proceedings are intended to secure full, faithful, and meaningful implementation of a judicial order. They cannot be defeated by a reduced interpretation that undermines the fruits of the original adjudication. Having considered the rival contentions and the settled legal principles, we are satisfied that the applicants have made out a clear case of incomplete compliance.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30' 14
23. Accordingly, these Execution Applications are allowed. The respondents are directed to implement the Tribunal's order dated 10.04.2024 in its entirety by granting the applicants notional continuity of service, notional seniority, notional promotion wherever due, and consequential notional pay fixation, strictly in accordance with law and at par with their juniors. Actual monetary benefits shall be admissible only from the date of their reinstatement, as already ordered.
24. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Compliance report shall be filed promptly thereafter.
25. All pending Miscellaneous Applications also stand disposed of. A copy of this order shall be placed on all connected files.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.11.25 11:13:40+05'30'