Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Sumit Kumar Chatiwal vs Central Excise And Customs on 10 June, 2025
::1 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BECH
Original Application No. 478/2022
With
Original Application No. 485/2022
Order reserved on :29.04.2025
Order pronounced on 10.06.2025
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Original Application No. 478/2022
1. Hariom S/o Babulal Meena Male,
Aged 34 years,
Ahmedabad
Presently posted as Inspector
Bench Residing at B-186, Saraswati Nagar, IOC Road,
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad.
2. Gyan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram Mccna Male,
Aged 32 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at V-706, Eden, Godrej Garden City,
Jagatpur Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad -382470
3. Himanshu S/o Devjibhai Parmar Male,
Aged 33 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at C-07-D Radhe Bunglows-2,
Behind TATA Motors, Khokhra, Ahmedabad-380008.
4. Satish Chand S/o Shri Kailash Chand Meena Male,
Aged 33 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at 1-12, Aarush Icon Flats, Radhanpur Road,
Mehsana, 384002.
5. Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Ramkishore Meena Male,
Aged 33 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at G-302, Ishan Silver, Opp Ishan Residency,
New C.G. Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-382424.
6. Munesh Kumar S/o Shri Babu Lal Meena, Male,
Aged 36 years, Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at C-503, A3 Heights
Opposite Sankalp Villa Bungalow, Motera, Ahmedabad - 380005
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::2 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
7. Rahul Kumar S/o Badri Narayan Meena, Male,
Aged 35 years, Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at 0-402, Parishkaar-1,
Near Khokhra Circle, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008.
8. Vijay Singh S/o Shri, Gopal Lal Meena Male,
Aged 30 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at 1/64, Race Course Park, Rajkot-360001.
9. Kirtishwar S/o Ram Roop Meena Male,
Aged 38 years, Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at C-203, Parmeshwar-3 Apartment,
Behind Satyamev Hospital, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad-382424.
10. Gaurav Kumar S/o Shri Vishnu Dayal Meena Male,
Aged 38 years,
Ahmedabad Presently posted as Inspector,
Bench
Residing at Flat No. 304, Upwan Residency,
Fulchandnagar Society, New Junction road,
B/H Gyandhara classes, Surendranagar 363001.
11. Chhotu Ram S/o Shri Har Sahay Meena Male,
Aged 30 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at Plot No. 01, GIDC, Naramada Nagar,
Plaiyad Road, Botad - 364710.
12. Bhagwan Sahay S/o Shri Bodan Lal Meena Male,
Aged 34 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at PB 46, Vardhaman Nagar,
Madhapar, Bhuj-370020.
13. Ramkishor S/o Badri Prasad Meena Male,
Aged 36 years, Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at C/o Madan Lal,
Plot No.-234, Ten.-1, Ward No. 8A, Subhash Nagar,
Gandhidham, 370201
14. Samay Singh S/o Shri Ram Bharosi Meena, Male,
Aged 33 years, Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at D-404, Gopalanand Residency,]
Opp. Lotus landmark, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad - 382424.
15. Deshraj S/o Shri Ramniwas Meena, Male,
Aged 32 years, Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at 54, Anupam society, Aero Drum,
Near Raj Kamal Petrol Pump, Mehsana 384002.
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::3 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
16. Rinkesh Kumar S/o Mantu Ram Meena Male,
Aged 31 years, Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at F-504, Dev Vrushti Society IOC Road,
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-382424.
17. Mahaveer Singh S/o Shri Megh Ram Meena Male,
Aged 30 years, Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at B-401, Nilkanth Residency, Nenr- IOC Road,
Chandkhedn, Ahmednbad-382424.
18. Satyawan S/o Pillu Ram Meena Male,
Aged 31 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at B-303, Swati Green,
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad - 382424.
19. Patel Utsav Kirit Kumar, Male,
Ahmedabad Aged 33 years,
Bench
Presently posted as Residing at A/8,
Gokul Apartment, Opposite Akhbarnagar BRTS stand,
Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad - 380013.
... Applicant
(By Advocate Ms. Harshal N Pandya)
V/s.
1. Union of India
Notice to be served through:The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi 110001
2. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs
Notice to be served through:
The Chairman, North Block, New Delhi-110 001
3. The Secretary (Personnel),
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Chief Commissioner
Central Goods & Service Tax, Vadodara Zone,
GST Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara 390007.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. R R Patel)
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::4 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
Original Application No. 485/2022
1. Sumit Kumar Chatiwal S/o Shri Govind Ram
Male, Aged 36 years,
Presently posted as Inspector
Residing at
C-903, Scarlet Height Apartments,
Prahlad nagar,
Ahmedabad 380015.
2. Ghanshyam S/O Ramchander Dholpuriya
Male, Aged 37 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at
E/204, Parmeshwar 3 Apartments,
B/h Satyamev Hospital, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad - 38242 4.
Ahmedabad 3. Nitish Bhardwaj S/o Chetanya Dev Sharma
Bench
Male, Aged 34 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at
Flat No. 404, Shalibhadra Apartment,
B/h KK Blind School,
Vidhyanagar, Bhavnagar - 364001.
4. Jitendra Kumar S/o Suraj Bhan Kuldeep
Male, Aged 33 years,
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at
301, Davin Apartment,
Shakti Plot-8, Sanala Road, Morbi - 363641.
5. Pradeep Pratap Singh
Male, Aged 38 years
Presently posted as Inspector,
Residing at
D-6, Birju Apartment,
Ambawadi, Ahmedabad - 380015.
... Applicant
(By Advocate Ms. Harshal N Pandya)
Versus
1) Union of India
Notice to be served through:
The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::5 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
2) The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs
Notice to be served through:
The Chairman,
North Block, New Delhi- 110 001
3) The Secretary (Personnel),
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110001.
4) The Chief Commissioner
Central Goods & Service Tax, Vadodara Zone,
GST Bhavan, Race Course Circle,
Vadodara - 390007.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. R R Patel)
ORDER
Ahmedabad
Bench
Per: Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
1. Since the above captioned OAs (OA No.478/2022 filed by 19 applicants and OA No.485/2022 filed by 05 applicants) are filed against the common order dated 20.12.2022 and issue/dispute involved is/are identical, reliefs are also identical based on similar grounds and with the consent of both the learned counsels for the parties, we proceed to dispose of both these OAs by the present common Order. For the sake of writing the present common order, the facts of OA No.478/2022 are taken and discussed herein below.
2. In the instant OAs, applicants being aggrieved with a common order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure-A/1) whereby rejecting the representations of the applicant(s), the respondent No.4 had treated the applicants have been transferred from their parent zone to Vadodara Zone on „Loan basis‟ from the date of their joining in Vadodara Zone till 20.12.2022 in terms of Board circular dated 20.09.2018 and accordingly, ordered relieving of the applicants from Vadodara CGST Zone to their parent Zone with immediate effect, thus, the applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
"Para viii 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::6 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 (A Be pleased to allow the present application. (B) Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 20.12.2022 of Res. No. 4, Annexure A-1 of this application. (C) Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to treat the applicants as an employee of the Vadodara Zone for all purposes as per conditions laid down in their transfer orders. (D) Be pleased to pass any further order or directions as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.
3. Brief facts as pleaded by the applicants are as under:-
3.1 In terms of conditions stipulated in the Central Excise and Customs Department Inspector (Group „C‟ Post) Recruitment Rules, 2002, the Staff Selection Committee had conducted the examination in the year 2006 for recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Central Excise. After due process of selection conducted by the Staff Selection Ahmedabad Bench Commission, the applicants herein were selected for the post of Inspector on the basis of graduate level examination 2006. On completion of the said selection process, based on allocation made to Chennai Central Excise Zone to the post of Inspector of Central Excise,they were offered appointment to the post of Inspectors by the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Zone vide order dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure-A/3 refer).
3.2 As per the offer of appointment order dated 16.02.2010, the applicants herein had joined their service as „Inspectors‟ in the respective Zones/Commissionerate between 2010-2013.
3.3 It is pleaded that by referring the conditions/subsequent relaxations conveyed vide Board‟s letters dated 19.02.2004,27.03.2009, 29.07.2009 and 09.02.2011 in connection with the Inter Commissionerate Transfer (herein after referred as „ICT‟) to facilitate posting of husband and wife at the same station and permitting ICT in respect of employees appointed on compassionate ground basis and for physically handicapped employees without loss of seniority in respect of groups, i.e., Group-B, C and D‟ employeesand by considering all aspects in the matter of ICT,the Board had 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::7 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 subsequently decided to lift the ban on ICT with immediate effect vide letter/circular dated 27.11.2011.
Accordingly, vide said circular dated 27.11.2011, it was directed that any willingness Group B, C employees and the erstwhile employees may apply for transfer from the jurisdiction of one Cadre Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred to as "CCA") to another CCA subject to availability of vacancy as per terms and conditions stipulated in the said order/decision dated 27.10.2011 (Annexure-A/4 refer).
The condition stipulated in para 2 (ii) of the said policy decision dated 27.10.2011 provides that „the transferee will be placed below Ahmedabad all officers appointed regularly to that post/grade on the date of Bench his/her appointment on transfer basis in terms of para 3.5 of DoP&T‟s OM dated 03.07.1986. In other words, such a transferee will be junior to those regularly appointed officers prior to his/her transfer. However, such transferred officers will retain his/her eligibility in parent Commissioneratefor his/her promotion to the next higher grade etc. 3.4 By accepting the terms and conditions stipulated in the policy decision of the Board dated 27.10.2011, mainly, Inspectors across the country applied for ICT, including applicants herein had also applied for their ICT.
3.5 The applications of the applicants for their ICT were considered by both the authorities i.e., Cadre Controlling Authority and New Commissionerate and on acceptance of the same by both the authorities, the applicants were transferred vide order dated 07.02.2017/23/2/2027 (Annexure-A/5 Colly.) and directed to Vadodara Zone subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions laid upon Board‟s order wherein it has been categorically stipulated that "(i) they will lose their original seniority in the new Commissionerate, 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::8 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
(ii) they are liable to be transferred and posted to anywhere in the Gujarat and
(iii) under no circumstances their request for repatriation to their parent zone will be entertained in future."
As per the conditions stipulated in the transfer order, the applicants had submitted their undertaking accepting the said conditions and based on the said undertaking, they were relieved from their erstwhile Chennai Zone and consequently joined at Vadodara Zone in the month of March/April 2017 and vide order dated 7.4.2017 issued by Additional Commissioner (CCO) Central Excise Custom and Excise, Vadodara Zone, the applicants herein were given posting to Central Excise, Ahmedabad.
3.6 Accordingly, since 2017, the applicants have been working in the Ahmedabad Bench Cadre of Inspectors in the Vadodara Zone.
3.7 In the meantime, new Recruitment Rules came to be introduced in the year 2016 governing the service conditions and Cadre of Inspectors (Central Excise). However, the applicants were recruited pursuant to the Recruitment Rules, therefore, their appointments are governed by Rules, 2002 which provides transfer/absorption as one of the modes of the recruitment.
It is stated that neither 2002 Rules nor 2016 Rules contain the provisions related to ICT because as per the information provided under RTI, the transfer is a matter of policy and not the Rules (Annexure-A/6 collectively refer). Further, it is stated that in the Rules, 2002, it was provided that jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Central Excise may fill any post from absorption from other Commissionerate.
3.8 It is stated that new Rules of 2016 were notified in the Gazette on 26.12.2016. Whereas the applicants herein had submitted their applications for their ICT much prior to the said 2016 Rules came into force. Further, it is stated that though the applicants had submitted their applications for ICT much prior to the Rules of 2016 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::9 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 came into force, however, due to the delay on the part of authorities concerned, the applications of the applicants for ICT on spouse or compassionate ground were accepted by the authorities only in the year 2016/2017.Accordingly, the applicants along with their family moved to the new Commissionerate i.e., Vadodara Zone and had settled there.
3.9 It is stated that some of the Inspectors feeling aggrieved by discrimination meted out to them in not considering their applications for ICT in terms of Board‟s instruction dated 27.10.2011, had approached the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal by way of OA No.333 of 2016 seeking directions to consider their case for transfer. The said OA was disposed of by the Ernakulam Bench of this Ahmedabad Bench Tribunal vide order dated 15.07.2016 with a direction to the Board to publish revised instructions on the said matter. Accordingly, the Board issued a letter dated 01.01.2017 requesting Chief Commissioner of Cochin Zone to take action as per the revised guidelines on ICT i.e., after the new Rules, 2016 came into force.
3.10 It is stated that Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, (earlier known as CBEC) (hereinafter referred to as „CBIC‟), subsequently, issued a Circular dated 20.09.2018 whereby various instructions issued to the effect that no ICT applications can be considered after the Recruitment Rules, 2016 came in force. Further, it has been stated therein that Office order for ICT in the Grade of „Inspector‟ issued on or after 26.12.2016, (i.e. from the date of enactment of RR 2016) will be non-est and accordingly, any officers who has joined another Zone in pursuance of such order shall be treated as a deemed case of Loan Basis with effect from 26.12.2026. The said officer shall be on deemed Loan till 31.03.2019 on which date the official shall relieve and be reverted to their parent Zones.
3.11 Since the respondents ignored the terms and conditions of the transfer order of the applicants as well as Recruitment Rules, 2002 including the fact that the applicants by forgoing their seniority, promotion and 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::10 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 other benefits had joined at Vadodara Zone in 2016/2017 and suddenly, they have been treated, all of a sudden, on „Loan Basis‟.
The applicants, who joined in the new Zone by accepting conditions of their ICT order and settled with their families, had taken house loan/education loan, are ordered to be transferred back to the Chennai Zone. However, at the same time, other officials whose applications were considered for ICT before cutoff date, i.e., 26.12.2016 are protected pursuant to same terms and conditions as mentioned in circular dated 20.09.2018 and they have been allowed to retain their ICT transfer on the ground of compassionate ground transfer etc. Therefore, the respondents have adopted the practice of creating a class within the class against the spirit of the Constitutional Ahmedabad Bench mandate.
Therefore, the applicants feeling discriminated and, thus, being aggrieved, except the applicant Nos.1 & 19 herein, had approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.484 of 2018 for quashing and setting aside the Circular dated 20.09.2018 and alternatively had sought relief for issuance of a direction to apply the said circular dated 20.09.2018 prospectively.
3.12 It is stated that by considering the grounds raised in the said OA i.e. OA No.484/2018, this Tribunal by way of interim order dated 25.10.2018 directed the respondents to maintain status-quo as on 25.10.2018.
3.13 In the meantime, similarly placed Inspectors being aggrieved with the withdrawal of inter commissionerate transfer vide circular dated 20.09.2018, had filed OA before CAT, Ernakulam Bench which was decided in favor of the employees. On being challenged the said order before the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala by the respondents, the Hon‟ble High Court while allowing the said writ petition had reversed the order passed by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench by upholding the validity of Circular dated 20.09.2018. Being 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::11 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 aggrieved, the said employees/Inspectors as well as other affected parties had approached the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
The Hon‟ble Apex Court vide common judgment dated 10.03.2022 in Civil Appeal No.1243 of 2022 (SK Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others and allied appeals) while upholding the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala, left it open for the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate the posting of employees on certain grounds with a directions to answer constitutional values which underline Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution be protected at the time of exercising such executive powers (Annexure-A/8) refer).
Ahmedabad 3.14 In light of the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court, the Bench respondents started process to dislocate the applicants whose family are by now settled, kids are studying, the old age parents of the applicants are under medical treatments and under such compelling conditions, some of the applicants/applicant herein had approached this Tribunal by filing MA 327/2022 in pending OA No.484/2018. This Tribunal vide order dated 21.09.2022 had disposed of the said OA and MAs with the observation that in case the applicants make a representation regarding their grievance within one month from today before the competent authority, the same shall be decided as per law in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court within two months from receipt of a representation. Since this Tribunal had vacated the interim stay order, some of applicants in OA No.484/2022 therein being aggrieved had approached the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat by filing SCA No.20692/2022.
It is further stated that similarly placed other Inspectors who were also beneficiary of ICT policy and transferred at Vadodara Zone had also filed OA 362/2022 before this Tribunal, the said OA came to be disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.09.2022, which was challenged by the said applicants before the Hon‟ble High Court Gujarat by way of SCA No.21189/2022.
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::12 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
3.15 By considering the observations and findings recorded by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of S.K.Nousad Raman & Ors.. vs Union of India & Ors, the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat without interference with the impugned orders therein disposed of the said SCA No.21189/2022 and SCA 20692/2022 vide separate orders dated 17.10.2022 (Annexures A-10 and A-11 refer) with a direction upon the respondents therein that the competent authority decide the representations of the applicants in accordance with law and on examining the individual case of each petitioners, the respondents must not be hurry to relieve the petitioners and also observe that it is discretion of the competent authority undoubtedly and yet, the mandate of judicial order deserves its due compliance. Ahmedabad Bench 3.16 In light of the aforesaid directions passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat, the applicants herein had submitted their individual detailed representations before the competent authority in the month of October, 2022 (Annexure-A/11 Colly. refer). To justify their retention under Vododara Zone, Gujarat, the applicant(s) have raised various grounds as stated in paras „A. to H.‟ in their representations, including the ground of exceptional circumstances, such as extreme compassionate ground, i.e., posting of spouse; disabled persons, including illness and suffering of their parents and family members as well compassionate ground transfer etc. and also requested the respondents to revisit the policy and that too by considering the values underline in Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India with regard to transfer of the applicants on compassionate/spouse/grounds as had been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in S.K. Nausad Rahaman (supra) as well as the order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat (supra) reminding the requirement of revisiting the policy at Board level in light of judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court (supra).
3.17 Thereafter, without considering the grounds stated in their individual representations by the applicants, including the grounds of 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::13 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 compassionate transfer as also without assigning any reasons for not revisiting the policy, the respondents by reiterating the applicability of Circular dated 20.09.2018 rejected the representations of the applicants in a mechanical manner by a common order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure A/1 refer) without delving upon the individual grounds individually mentioned in the representations by the applicants. Hence, the present OA.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued the following comprehensive grounds to seek quashing and setting aside of the impugned order:
4.1 The impugned order is a common and generic one, failing to Ahmedabad address or consider the individual representations and Bench circumstances of each applicant, thereby violating the principle of individualized consideration and rendering the order legally untenable;
4.2 The order is not in compliance with the explicit directions issued by the Hon‟ble High Court vide order dated 17.10.2022 in the said SCA, which required the respondents to apply their mind and consider each applicant‟s representation on merits and in accordance with law;
4.3 The reasoning in the impugned order reflects a selective and convenient interpretation of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while disregarding the broader ratio and key observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat;
4.4 The applicants‟ cases are distinguishable from others due to specific conditions incorporated in their transfer orders, more particularly in the order dated 27.02.2017, there is a condition that under no circumstances, their request for repatriation to the parent zone will be entertained in future.
2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::14 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 It is stated that these transfers were made pursuant to the 27.10.2011 policy, duly accepted by both CCAs, with NOCs and undertakings obtained, and were finalized through relieving orders post the 2016 Recruitment Rules (RRs). Therefore, withdrawal of such transfers now is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, since the respondents have not issued any show cause notice to the applicants;
4.5 The impugned order appears to be aimed at repatriating the applicants under the guise of compliance with judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India (supra), without considering the judicial directives of both the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Hon‟ble High Court, Ahmedabad Bench which mandated case-by-case consideration. This blanket approach is contrary to law;
4.6 The policy has been applied in a discriminatory manner, allowing certain Inspectors to benefit from cadre transfers and denying the same to others similarly situated. Such differential treatment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;
4.7 Even if transfer is a condition of service, the current decision is invalid as per the prevailing policy and service jurisprudence. Transfer within a department between cadres does not amount to "recruitment" under the RRs. Treating inter-CCA cadre transfers as recruitment is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in S.K. Nausad Rahman (supra) and violates Article 309 of the Constitution of India;
4.8 The respondents have erred in stating that the applicants were transferred under the RRs of 2002 or 2016. In fact, the transfers of the applicants were executed solely based on the 27.10.2011 policy. The transfers neither refer to nor rely upon the 2002/2016 RRs, and thus cannot be governed retrospectively by them;
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::15 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
4.9 The impugned order does not uphold the principles of equality,
compassion, family life, or social justice as guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. The said impugned order ignores compassionate grounds and spousal considerations, and must be reconsidered in view of constitutional values;
4.10 The RRs of 2002 do not envisage absorption from one CCA cadre to another; Rule 4(ii) is limited to inter-Commissionerate transfers. The policy of 27.10.2011 remains applicable and operative. Applying the 2018 policy retrospectively is unjust and legally untenable;
Ahmedabad 4.11 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court's observations in Para 28 of SK Bench Nausad Rahman(supra) must be read with the settled principle of law that the Government retains the power to issue executive instructions on appointments and transfers even in the absence of specific statutory provisions;
4.12 There is no rationale for providing protection only to those transferred before the 2016 RRs, as there exists no material distinction between transfers executed under the 2002 and 2016 RRs. This selective application is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
4.13 Since the applicants were transferred under the 2002 RRs and in terms of the policy decision dated 27.10.2011, any subsequent change in rules (e.g., RRs of 2016 or 2018 policy) cannot be applied retrospectively to their detriment;
4.14 It is vehemently argued that in the transfer order of the applicants issued in the year 2017, which stipulates explicit and binding conditions that the applicants would not be repatriated (Annexure A/1 refer). Ignoring these conditions constitutes a breach of agreement and renders the impugned action arbitrary and illegal;
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::16 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
4.15 The interpretation of Rule 4(ii) by the respondents is incorrect and contrary to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court's observations. Transfers within restructured CCA cadres cannot be governed by rules applicable to the older Commissionerate structure;
4.16 The applicants were transferred at their own request, with a voluntary acceptance of loss of seniority and lien. They cannot now be retrospectively repatriated or converted to "loan basis"
appointments. Such action violates the doctrine of estoppel and fair play;
4.17 The respondents are attempting to retroactively alter service conditions without statutory backing. The department‟s own Ahmedabad communications (e.g., dated 08.04.2021) suggest cadre Bench adjustments that are not formally approved, and hence cannot justify repatriation;
4.18 The respondents have not demonstrated any administrative hardship due to the applicants‟ continued posting. Conversely, repatriation will cause serious hardship to the applicants and their families, thereby undermining efficiency and fairness;
4.19 The respondents have failed to demonstrate that the applicants‟ cases fall outside the categories eligible under the policy. Arbitrary denial of relief amounts to violation of constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16;
4.20 One-time relaxations have been extended in the past to various employees including Stenographers. Therefore, creating a class within a class is unconstitutional. Denial of similar relief to the applicants is discriminatory and demoralizing, especially given their critical role in revenue collection;
4.21 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clearly held that while framing service conditions, the State must incorporate constitutional 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::17 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 values, especially protection of family life (Article 21). Policies must be fair, equitable, and constitutionally compliant;
4.22 The cases before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court involved employees seeking transfers. The applicants in the present case were already transferred much earlier under specific binding conditions. The Apex Court did not consider such scenarios, making the impugned order clearly distinguishable; and 4.23 Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants, would argue that in view of the above detailed grounds in the individual representations, facts, settled legal principles, and binding precedents, the representations of the applicants should have Ahmedabad been considered individually in light of the directions issued by Bench the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat (supra) but the respondents have arbitrarily and erroneously rejected the representations of the applicant that too by a common order which is in violation of mandate stipulated in by the judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Tribunal and the applicants may kindly be continued in their present zones, in accordance with the terms of their valid transfer orders.
5. Per contra, respondents have filed their reply and denied the contentions raised by the applicant. However, before adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel, they have also stated the facts as under:-
5.1 The CBIC issued circular vide F. No. A-22015/117/2016- Ad.IIIA dated 20.09.2018(Annexure-R/1) wherein it has been stated that since RRs 2016 do not contain any provision for recruitment by absorption, no application for ICTs could be considered after the enforcement of those Rules. Further, in para 7 of the said circular, it was clarified that any office order issued on or after 26.12.2016 (i.e. from the date of enactment of RRs, 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::18 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 2016) for Inter Commissionerate Transfer in the Grade of Inspectors will be non-est and accordingly any officer who has joined another zone in pursuance of such order shall be treated as a deemed case on loan basis w.e.f. 26.12.2016.
5.2 The Inter Zonal transfer Orders, in case of these applicants, were passed by the respective Chief Commissioners in the year 2017, i.e. after the cut-off date 26.12.2016. In pursuance of these Inter Zonal Transfer Orders, these officers also joined in Vadodara Zone and since the year 2017, they have been working in the cadre of Inspector in the present Zone. But, after the issuance of CBIC circular dated 20.09.2018, these officers were to be deemed on loan basis till 31.03.2019, on which date Ahmedabad Bench the officers were to be relieved and be reverted to their parent Zones.
5.3 Apropos the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court's order dated 17.10.2022 in SCA No. 20692 of 2022, the applicants had submitted their representations to the CCA, Vadodara Zone, citing their personal difficulties/worries as personal problems and other grounds to justify their claims. After considering each representations carefully, a speaking common order dated 20.12.2022 was issued by the CCA, Vadodara Zone, rejecting all the representations in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment rendered in the case of S. K. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.
Vide separate order of even date i.e. 20.12.2022 was also issued, whereby, 27 concerned Inspectors, including the applicants herein, were relieved in the afternoon of 20.12.2022 by the CCA, Vadodara Zone so as to join their parent Zones.
5.4 It is submitted that, the impugned common order dated 20.12.2022 was passed in due compliance of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's judgment & order dated 17.10.2022 as 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::19 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 well as judgment & order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, applicants would have no locus standi to file the present OA before this Tribunal.
5.5 Moreover, if the representations submitted by the applicants, if perused even barely, their case would not fall within the category such as spouse ground, handicapped &/or compassionate ground. Some tacit reference of ill health of one of the family member or kids' education has been made by some of the applicants, but, this would fall within the general difficulties, which shall be faced by almost every family. It is stated that within the purview of „compassion‟, exclusive difficult situation would fall. From this angle, applicants' Ahmedabad Bench representations would not fall within the criteria enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment. Applicants' representations are majorly insisting for re-visiting the policy, which has been left to the domain of the executive by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Moreover, Hon'ble Apex court has also left to the discretion of the respondent authority who shall decide each case keeping in view the criteria suggested by it.
5.6 Learned counsel for the respondents would argue that the issue of ICT has been finally settled by the higher forums. Therefore, no cause of action in fact has arisen in favor of the applicants so as to rush before this Tribunal.
5.7 The applicants have utterly failed to demonstrate/averred that, any of their Constitutional right has been infringed in terms of the proposed criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment.
5.8 It is submitted that the answering respondent being a subordinate office under CBIC is bound by the Circular F. No. 22015/117/2016-Ad.IIIA dated 20.09.2018. This circular is 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::20 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 clarificatory in nature with reference to RRs of Inspector notified in 2016. As such, the applicants herein by the impugned order have been treated on deem long basis from the date of joining at Vadodara Zone till 31.03.2019. Thereafter, the loan period has been treated to be deemed to have been extended from 01.04.2019 to 20.10.2022.
5.9 It is further submitted that issuance of the Circular is a policy matter. Further, on issuance of Board's letter dated 20.09.2018, many of the officers, who were on ICT in different zones, were repatriated to their parent zone. In case this repatriation is stayed, this will lead to be injustice with the officers already repatriated and who have joined in their parent zone and may Ahmedabad Bench open a Pandora box for litigations. And once the Statutory Rules came into vogue, executive circular would lose its purport & significance.
5.10 Further, it is submitted by the respondents that on the one hand, the applicants herein claiming to re-visit the policy of 2018 and on the other hand, they contending that circular dated 2018 would not be applicable in their cases in view of policy decision dated 27.10.2011 for grant of ICT benefits to them.
5.11 It is again reiterated that incourse of time, such transfer orders from one cadre strength to another cadre strength have been named as Inter Commissionerate Transfer or Inter Zonal Transfer based on the cadre restructuring taken place from time to time. But such transfers are understood to be Inter Cadre Transfer between two CCA Cadres, as, the CCA Cadre itself forms a separate unit for the purpose of recruitment, seniority, promotion and roaster.
Fundamental Rule 9(4) defines "cadre" to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a, separate unit. It is the choice of a State to constitute cadres.
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::21 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
Therefore, none of the submissions of the applicants is tenable, and thus, they are not entitled for any relief as sought for.
6. The applicants have filed their rejoinder reiterating the contentions as raised in the OA. Additionally, it has been contended by the counsel for the applicants that it is highly incorrect that the impugned order has been passed in due compliance of the order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court (supra). In this regard, it is stated that in fact there is no objective consideration was done by the respondents on the representations submitted by the applicants herein. The direction issued by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat was to the effect that the respondents before actually apply its mind and considering the request in accordance with law on examining the individual cases of each applicant and the respondents Ahmedabad Bench must not be hurried to relieve the applicants.
In view of this, it is submitted that had there been examination of individual case by the respondents then individual orders dealing with the grievances individually would have been passed by a separate order. Thus, there is no examination of individual cases by the respondents, as can be seen from the impugned common order all such Inspectors, including the applicants working in Vadodara Zone.
6.1 Learned counsel for the applicants would argue that the wife of one of the applicants is as such serving in Gujarat, thus, on spouse ground, his case is required to be considered and he should be retained at the existing place of working in light of the DOP&T‟s guidelines on the subject as well the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in true letter and spirit. Further, the wife of the applicant no.19 is working in ONCG Ahmedabad and hence on spouse ground, he requested for ICT by letter dated 4.3.2016 accepting the same, he has been transferred to Vadodara Zone. In spite of said applicant submitted his representation dated 4.11.2022 requesting that he should be retained on spouse ground, but without adverting of the said grievance of the above applicant, the respondents in a mechanical manner passed the impugned common order rejecting the representations of the applicants. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the respondents to state 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::22 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 that by considering each/individual representations of the applicants, they have rejected the said each representation by speaking order. As such as demonstrated here, it is crystal clear that the respondents failed to consider the representations of the applicants individually and thereby not complied with the directions issued by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat.
6.2 Learned counsel for the applicants would argue that even after the circular dated 20.9.2018, the respondent - Board has approved Inter Commissionerate Transfer on spouse ground in the case of one Ms. Aditi Chakorbarty, that too not on loan basis. In this regard, learned counsel reliance has been made on the information supplied by the respondents under Right to Information Act (Annexure R/6 to the rejoinder). Whereas, in the case(s) of the applicant(s), there exists spouse ground, the same has been Ahmedabad Bench conveniently ignored by the respondents while passing the impugned order.
6.3 Further it is submitted that in the cadre of Stenographer Grade II under the respondent - Board, the absorption is not one of the mode of recruitments like Inspectors. However, such Stenographer Grade II officers who came under ICT to Jaipur Zone have been granted promotion as Stenographer Grade I notionally. Thus, the respondents have permitted the ITC beneficiary in the said cadre to receive all promotional benefits .Therefore, it can be seen that the respondents have acted as per their own sweet will and wish rather than applying the uniform methods in all the cadres in respect to transfer of their employees. (Annexures R-8 and R-9 refer).
6.4 Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed on record a copy of circular/letter dated 04.07.2024 issued by the Director of Income Tax (Human Resource Development), Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, New Delhi whereby had modified the instructions contained in circular dated 27.04.2021. The said fresh directions/instructions by way of clarification issued dated 04.07.2024 reads as under:-
"To The All the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCAs) 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::23 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 Madam/Sir Sub: Clarification of ICT application received before 22.12.2020- reg.
Ref: HRD letter issued vide F.No.HRD/CM/104/10/2020- 21/625 dated 27.04.2021 Kindly refer to the above,
2. In view of pending litigations before different legal forum and also decisions of various Hon‟ble CATs with regard to inter-charge transfer on pending applications with different CCA regions on 22.12.2020, the clarification issued by this directorate vide letter dated 27.04.2021 is modified as under:-
"All applications for inter charge transfer in respect of which NOC have been issued by the recipient region before 22.12.2020, all such applicants/officers may be relieved in terms of conditions prescribed as per CBDT‟s instructions dated 4.5.1990 issued vide Ahmedabad Bench F.No.A-22020/76/89-AD-VII".
3. The Inter se seniority in the respective cadres in Recipient region shall be determined as per para (f) of CBDT‟s instructions dated 14.05.1990 vide F.No.A-22020/76/89-AD-VII.
4. An affidavit to the effect that the official shall abide by the conditions of transfer as laid down in CBDT‟s instruction dated 14.05.1990 issued vide F.No. A-22020/76/89-AD-VII, shall be obtained from the officials before their relieving from home region.
5. Issued with the approval of the competent authority."
Learned counsel for the applicants by referring the aforesaid argued that the policy decision with regard to Inter Charge Transfer (ICT) and assignment of relevant seniority to the beneficiary of such transfer has been suitably decided and modified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Revenue Department, New Delhi. Since the respondent no.2 herein, i.e., Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, who is also under the control of the Revenue Department, GoI, as like the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the said respondent No.2 ought to have considered and re- visited the policy for transfer/ICT as well in terms of the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat referred hereinabove.
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::24 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
6.5 In sum, it is reiterated that the respondents failed to adhere to the directions issued by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat and Hon‟ble Supreme Court, referred hereinabove, and in violation of the mandate of the said judgments, rejected the individual representations of the applicant vide impugned common order in a mechanical manner without considering the grievances of the applicants as mentioned therein.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record as well as judgments relied upon by both the parties.
8. There is no dispute that while validating the Circular dated 20.09.2018 issued by the respondent - Board, in the case of S.K. Nausad Rahaman (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court, at the same time, by considering the Ahmedabad importance of protecting the family life as an element of dignity of the Bench person and postulate a privacy, emphasized that in crafting the policy in this regard, the State cannot ignore the basic constitutional values including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21 and accordingly by recording following observations and had issued directions, which read as under:-
"50 The State's interference in the rights of privacy, dignity, and family life of persons must be proportional. This Court in Akshay N. Patel v. Reserve Bank of India35, held that the framing of policy must meet an integrated proportionality analysis which answers whether the measure is:
(i) in furtherance of a legitimate aim;
(ii) suitable for achieving the aim;
(iii) necessary for achieving the aim; and
(iv) adequately balanced with the rights of the individual.
51 The State in the present case has been guided by two
objectives: first, the potential for abuse of ICTs and second, the distortion which is caused in service leading to plethora of litigation. The State while formulating a policy for its own employees has to give due consideration to the importance of 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::25 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy. How a particular policy should be modulated to take into account the necessities of maintaining family life may be left at the threshold to be determined by the State. In crafting its policy however the State cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21.
52 The circular dated 20 September 2018 has taken into account, what it describes "exceptional circumstances" such as "extreme compassionate grounds". Leaving these categories undefined, the circular allows for individual cases to be determined on their merits on a case by case basis, while prescribing that transfers on a "loan basis" may be allowed subject to administrative requirements with a tenure of three years, extendable by a further period of two years. While proscribing ICTs which envisage absorption into a cadre of a person from a Ahmedabad Bench distinct cadre, the circular permits a transfer for a stipulated period on a loan basis. Whether such a provision should be suitably enhanced to specifically include cases involving
(i) postings of spouses;
(ii) disabled persons; or
(iii) compassionate transfers, is a matter which should be considered at a policy level by the Board.
53 In considering whether any modification of the policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the need for a proportional relationship between the objects of the policy and the means which are adopted to implement it. The policy above all has to fulfill the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing the values which underlie a decision making process informed by constitutional values. Hence while we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds.
Such an exercise has to be left within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly protected. The appeals shall be disposed of in the above terms.
54 Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::26 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
9. Further it is noticed that being aggrieved with the Order dated 21.09.2021 passed by CAT, Ahmedabad Bench in OA No.484/2018 with MA No.327/2022, the Original Applicants therein had filed petition being C/SCA No.21189/2022 (Hariom Meena S/o Babulal Meena vs. Union of India) before the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat. While considering the prayer sought for by the petitioners therein, who were the beneficiary of ICT policy working as Inspector under Vadodara Zone, Gujarat, the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat by referring and reproducing the observations and findings recorded in paras 32, 34, 39, 42, 43, 48, 49 and 52 by the Hon‟ble Apex court in S.K.Nausad Rahaman (supra), had disposed of the said petition SCA No.21189/2022 vide oral order dated 17.10.2022 with following observation and directions (Annexure A/10 refer) which reads as Ahmedabad under:-
Bench "11. It is thus clear that the Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Kerala, the Court has left it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate the posting of the spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. This of course has been left left within the domain of the executive for ensuring that in the process, the constitutional values under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution are duly protected.
12. On inquiry, learned senior standing counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval submits that policy has not been revisited as yet.
However, there being a mandate from the Apex Court, there shall be such exercise, however, he is unable to specify the time period during which the same shall be re-formulated."
*** *** ***
14. Considering the directions issued by the Tribunal on the strength of the decision of S.K. Nausad Rahman & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 1494 and as this Court chooses not to interfere with the order impugned as there is nothing to find fault with the same, the respondent is required to be directed to wait for the period of 30 days to be over when the representation of the petitioner is expected to reach the respondent - authorities. Let the competent authority decide the same in accordance with the law as the time period given to it by the Tribunal for the said purpose is of two months. It is for the authority concerned to choose to decide it within the period convenient to it. However, before the expiry of one month period and before actually applying its mind and considering the request in accordance with law on examining the individual case of each petitioner, the respondent must not 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::27 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 be in a hurry to relieve the petitioner. It is the discretion of the competent authority undoubtedly and yet, the mandate of judicial order deserves its due compliance.
15. We also make it clear that in the event of the individual case of petitioner not binding favour with the authorities concerned, disposal of this petition shall not be construed as a denial of right to the petitioner if eventually either by way of a review pending before the Apex Court or by way of change in the policy as directed by the Apex Court, any of the petitioner become entitled to the prayer at a future date which he has sought before this Court.
16. With the above directions, present petition stands disposed of."
10. As noted herein above, undisputedly, in compliance of the order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court, each applicants herein have submitted Ahmedabad Bench their individual representations dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure A-11 Colly.
refer) before the respondent no.4, i.e., Chief Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Vadodara, Gujarat, ventilating their compelling personal circumstances to justify their retention at Vadodara Zone, Gujarat on compassionate grounds, including, in some of the cases spouse ground, serious ailments of their old aged parents, had also took an huge amount of housing loan as the said ICT granted to them with a clear condition that under no circumstances, their request for repatriation to their parent zone will be entertained in future, as well as other grounds and requested the competent authority, to revisit the policy in light of the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SK Nausad Rahaman's case (supra) as well as of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No.21189/2022 dated 17.10.2022.
11. At this stage, it is apt to mention that similarly placed Inspectors, who were also beneficiary of ICT and working at Vadodara Zone, and were also the applicants in OA No.484/2018 with MA 327/2022, they being aggrieved with the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Tribunal in the said OA, had also filed petition being SCA No.20692/2022 (Munesh Kumar S/o Babulal Meena vs. Union of India) before the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat. The said petition was disposed of by the Hon‟ble High Court with identical 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::28 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 directions/observation vide order dated 17.10.2022 as has been given in SCA No.21189/2022 vide order of even date, i.e. 17.10.2022.
12. It is noticed that in all the said individual representations filed by the applicants besides their personal compelling circumstances, they have requested the competent authority to revisit the policy with regard to transfer of the employees working as Inspectors in light of the observations and directions issued by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahaman (supra) as well as in the orders passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No.21189/2022 as well as SCA No.20692/2022 (supra). However, without making a reference or consideration by the competent authority, i.e., Respondent No.2 on the issue of revisiting of policy, the respondent no.4 vide impugned common order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure Ahmedabad Bench A/1) had rejected the said individual representations by assigning the reasons that validity of circular dated 20.09.2018 and issue of ITC had already been considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahaman (supra) and the same is no longer res integra, but without delving upon the individuals compelling circumstances as raised by the applicants in their representations.
13. As noted above, learned counsel for the applicants has rightly demonstrated that none of compelling circumstances as stated by the applicants in their individual representations have been considered by the respondent no.4 while rejecting the representations by common order and there is no whisper at all in this regard in the common impugned order. As such we are in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that impugned order passed by respondent no.4 without considering the judicial directives of both the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Hon‟ble High Court, which mandated case-by-case consideration, hence, the decision making process on the part of respondent no.4 suffers from the legal infirmities.
14. At this stage, it apt to mention that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahaman (supra) had specifically recorded a finding that what is described in circular dated 20.09.2018 about "exceptional 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::29 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 circumstances" such as "extreme compassionate ground" (which as such undefined categories), while prescribing ICT which envisages absorption into a cadre of a person from a distinct cadre circular permits a transfer for a stipulated period on a loan basis. Further it has been recorded the finding to the effect that whether such a provisions should be suitability enhance to specifically include the cases involving (i) posting of spouses; (ii) disabled persons; or (iii) compassionate transfers, is a matter which should be considered at a policy level by the Board, admittedly the grounds stated by the applicants in their representations to justify their retention at the existing place of working which includes request before the competent authority to revisit the policy keeping in view the hardships meted out to the applicants in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The grievances in Ahmedabad our considered view need to be considered by the competent authority. Bench
15. Recently, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Principal Bench in OA No.321/20233 with MA No.328/2022 (titled Sumit and others vs. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) filed by the applicant(s) working as Inspectors (Steno) and Tax Assistants (Group „B‟ & „C" respectively), while answering to the challenge to the impugned policy of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 22.12.2020 known as „Loan Basis‟ Policy 2020 applicable to Group „C‟ employees and withdrawal of Inter Charge Transfer policy, the coordinate Bench vide Order dated 12.02.2025, by referring to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahaman (supra) remitted the said matter to respondent no.2 therein, i.e., the Chairman, CBDT to do the „due diligence‟ and craft a prudent human and compassionate human resource (HR), transfer policy - IRS - ICT policy for Groups „B‟ and „C‟ employees which is neither arbitrary nor discrimination but in consonance with Group „A‟ employees with the observation that this would strengthen and validate the image of Govt. instrumentality - CBDT as a „model employer‟ in a welfare State and accordingly the said OA was disposed of.
From the above referred order of the coordinate Bench, it can be inferred that the competent authority, i.e., CBDT in the said OA was directed 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::30 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 to adhere to the mandate under the Constitution of India and law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SK Nausad Rahaman (supra) while considering the representations/claim of employees in respect to re-visiting the policy for transfer of such employees. Suffices to state that both Central Board of Direct Taxes and Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs are under the control of Ministry of Revenue (Department of Revenue) and to maintain the uniformity in respect to transfer of the employees of the said departments it is incumbent upon the respondents to adhere to the directions issued by Hon‟ble Apex Court in SK Nausad Rahaman (supra) while re- visiting/formulating the policy for its own employees by considering the importance of protecting family life and by taking into account the necessity of maintaining the family life in accordance with the basic Constitutional Ahmedabad values, including the mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Bench
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, undisputedly, there is no consideration at all in the impugned order about the individual grievances raised by each applicants in their individual representations and as such the impugned order has been passed without adherence of the directions of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA Nos.20692/2022 and 21189/2022 dated 17.10.2022, under the circumstances, the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents, as noted above, to justify the impugned order, as such not acceptable.
17. Thus, we are of the considered view that the respondents have not dealt with the individual representations of the applicants in true letter and spirit of the judicial directives. As such the impugned common order dated 20.12.2022 suffers from legal infirmity and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside to that extent only.
At this stage, we can also not ignore the fact that the applicants in their representations had stated various grounds for re-visiting the policy and had requested the competent authority to do needful for redressal of their grievance in light of judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SK Nausad Rahaman (supra). The said grievance of the applicants in our 2025.06.12 P ANUKUMA 17:27:29+05'30' ::31 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022 considered opinion required to be considered by the respondent - Board, i.e., respondent No.2 herein.
Further, we cannot lost sight of the fact that by afflux of time, i.e., after the applicants had submitted the representations in the month of October 2022 till date, the special compassionate grounds/situation of the applicants herein might have changed. Under the circumstances, in this regard, we deem it appropriate that an opportunity be afforded to the applicants herein to submit their individual additional comprehensive representations to the respondents.
18. In the result, we partly allow the present OAs (OA No.478/2022 and OA No.485/2022) in the following terms:-
Ahmedabad Bench (i) The impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure A/1 in both OAs) are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The applicants are liberty to submit their individual additional comprehensive representations before the respondents in furtherance of their earlier individual representations within six weeks from today;
(iii) Upon receipt of additional individual representations, if any, from the applicants within the time stipulated above and the individual representations filed by the applicants in the month of October 2022 shall be considered and decided by the respondents (competent authority) by passing a reasoned and speaking order separately in each case strictly keeping in view the dicta laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahaman (supra) and Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA Nos.21189/2022 and 20692/2022 dated 17.10.2022 within a period of six months;
(iv) Till the disposal of the said representations as directed hereinabove, the respondents are directed not to relieve the applicants from their existing place of working.
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'
::32 :: OA Nos. 478 & 485/2022
19. There shall be no order as to cost.
20. MA(s), if any, pending shall stand disposed of.
21. Registry is directed to place a copy of this Order in another connected OA.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member(J)
/PA/
Ahmedabad
Bench
2025.06.12
P ANUKUMA
17:27:29+05'30'