Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pomela B. Prasad vs Union Of India Through on 16 February, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 14/2010
New Delhi, this the 16th day of February, 2010
Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman
Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman(A)
Pomela B. Prasad
Commissioner of Income Tax
W/o Late Sh. M.S. Prasad
R/o C-24, Defence Colony,
New Delhi 110 024. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Promod Gupta and Mr. Manish Kumar)
Versus
Union of India through:
1. Secretary,
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
3. Establishment Officer,
DOPT, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.N. Singh)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
The applicant in the matter of promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has been superseded by her juniors. Inasmuch as present matter is covered in favour of the applicant, there would be no need to give facts in detail. Suffice it, however, to mention that the DPC for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax met on 23.10.2009. The ACRs under consideration by the DPC were from the years 2003-04 to 2007-08. The benchmark for all the ACRs was to be very good. Admittedly, for three years i.e. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08, the applicant was assessed as very good. It is only with regard to the ACRs for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 that she has been graded as good, which are below benchmark. Admittedly as well, these two ACRs, which are below benchmark, were not communicated to the applicant, and further that reporting and review officers of the said ACRs have since already retired. Normally this Tribunal following the decision of Honble Supreme Court in CA No. 7631/2002 decided on 23.05.2008 in the matter of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.24/2007 decided on 07.05.2008 in the matter of Ashok Kumar Aneja v. Union of India & Ors., would have directed the respondents to convey to the applicant her ACRs, which may be below benchmark, have representation from her, and if in consideration thereof the ACR of the applicant is upgraded commensurate to the benchmark, consider her case for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax from the date when others were so promoted. However, admittedly, in the present case, the reporting and review officers of the ACRs for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 have since already retired. That being so, following the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar V/s. Union of India & Ors., (SLP No. 26556/2004 decided on 22.10.2008) and the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of O. P. Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No.1178/2009 decided on 14.10.2009), we dispose of this Original Application directing the respondents to ignore the ACRs for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 and take into consideration the ACRs for the years 1999-2000 and 2001-02, as ACRs for the years 2000-01 and 2002-03 were not reported/reviewed on account of retirement of concerned officers, which are commensurate with the benchmark. Respondents would constitute a review DPC to re-consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in the light of above observations, and in consideration of the ACRs, as mentioned above, and if she is found fit for promotion, said promotion shall be given to her from the date her juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. We may mention here that if there would be no vacancy then till such time re-consideration takes place, the interim order passed by this Tribunal shall continue.
Let the directions as ordained above be complied with as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/