Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Amit Kumar on 13 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 5172 OF 2024 (S-CAT)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5118 OF 2024 (S-CAT)
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5172 OF 2024 :
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110 001
2. CHAIRMAN
Digitally signed by CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA NORTH BLOCK, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
NEW DELHI-110 001
3. Pr. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION
C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG, A/W.
SRI. B PRAMOD., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
AND:
1. AMIT KUMAR
S/O SHRI. SHIVCHANDRA PRASAD SINGH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)
WARD NO.3(2), BENGALURU
HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 032
R/AT NO.BU-402, ULTIMATE SIGNATURE
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 062
2. DHIMAN NARAYAN SINHA
S/O LATE B.N. SINHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS INCOME-TAX OFFICER
REFAC(AU)-2(1)(2), 6TH FLOOR
HMT BHAVAN, BENGALURU
R/AT NO.D3-023, SMM RAJ ETTERNIA
KUDLU, BENGALURU-560 068
3. RAJIV KUMAR
S/O SHRI. VISHWANATH PRASAD CHOUDHARY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 2(1), BMTC COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 001
R/AT NO.A2-052, SNN RAJ ETTERNIA
KUDLU, BENGALURU-560 068
4. H.C. VAGEESHA
S/O H. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD I, INCOME TAX OFFICE
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
5. M.S. RAVIKIRAN
S/O M. SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD I, INCOME TAX OFFICE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 440
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. TERSEM CHAND GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 IN FR
CP NO.3867/2024 AND FOR R2 & R3;
V/O DATED 01.04.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 & R5 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
BENGALURU IN OA No.170/00219/2022 AS ILLEGAL, NON-
SPEAKING, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ARBITRARY
AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5118 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110 001
2. CHAIRMAN
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001
3. Pr. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
3 KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION
C.R. BUILDING
QUEEN'S ROAD
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
BENGALURU-560 001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG, A/W.
SRI. B PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VIVEKESHWAR SHARAN VARSHNEY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O SRI. DEVI SHARAN GUPTA
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD-3(1)(3), BENGALURU
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
2. SAMIR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O SHRI. BHANU DUTT SINGH
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
REFAC (AU)-2(3)(2), BENGALURU
HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 032
3. ANIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O SHRI. SHIVANANDAN KUMAR SINHA
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
REFAC (AU)-2(2)(4), BENGALURU
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
4. SANJEEV KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O SHRI. OM PRAKASH JALAN
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
5. NEERAJ AGARWAL
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
S/O SHRI. ARUN AGARWAL
INCOME TAX OFFICER
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
6. DEEPAK CHANDOLA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SHRI. CHINTRAMANI CHANDOLA
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
CPC, BENGALURU
PRESTIGE ALPHA BUILDING
HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 500
7. ABHISHEK PANDEY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O SHRI. DESHDEEPAK PANDEY
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
REFAC (AU-1(2)(3),
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
8. VIKAS CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SHRI. RAMACHANDRA PRASAD
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
9. RAKESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O SHRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
C.R. BUILDING ANNEXE, QUEEN'S ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
10 . SUNIL KUMAR YADAV
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O SHRI. RAM KUMAR YADAV
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
11 . KRISHNA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SHRI. RAMESHWAR PRASAD
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
12 . SARBJIT KAUR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
W/O SHRI. BALJIT SINGH
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
13 . SANDEEP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SHRI. KALI RAM
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
14 . SURAJ LAMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SHRI SONAM LAMA
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
REFAC (AU)-1(4)(5)
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMAGNALA
BENGALURU-560 095
15 . SHAMBU KESHARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE KAILASH KESHRI
WORKING AS INCOME TAX OFFICER
REFAC (AU)-3(2)(4), BENGALURU
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
16 . MANJULA R.
D/O LATE M. RAJASHEKARAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
REFAC (AU)-1(2)(3)
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMGNALA
BENGALURU-560 095
17 . JAYASHREE K.
W/O SHRI. B. HAMIESH RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
REFAC (AU)-2(2) (3), 59
HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 032
18 . MAMATHA J.
D/O SHRI. Y.M. JAYARAME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
W-4(2) (1), BMTC BUILDING
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095
19 . MEENAKSHI
W/O SHRI SRIDHARAN K.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
O/O THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1
C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
20 . MINI VERGHESE
D/O SHRI A.M. VERGHESE
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
REFAC (AU)-2 (1)(6)
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
21 . MURALI K.
S/O SHRI. D.C. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
22 . NANDISH S HANJI
S/O SHRI. S.M. HANJI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
O/O THE Pr. COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
23 . RAJENDRA KUMAR K.
S/O SHRI. R. KASINATHAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
(TDS), WARD-1(2)
59, HMT BHAVAN
BELLARY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 032
24 . MANJUNATH B.S.
S/O SHRI. B.S. SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
REFAC (VU)-1(6)
KUNIGAL ROAD, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR
TUMAKURU-572 101
25 . RATHI N.
W/O SRI. M. GOPINATH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
O/O THE Pr. COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)
CR BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
26 . SATHYANARAYAN SETTY M.B.
S/O SHRI. M.B. RAMACHANDRAPPA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
(TDS) WARD-2(1)
59, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 032
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
27 . MAHADEVAIAH N.
S/O SHRI. NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095
28 . VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY P.
S/O LATE P. SEETHARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
INCOME TAX OFFICER
O/O OF THE Pr. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)
C.R. BUIDING, QUEEN'S ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. TERSEM CHAND GUPTA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 IN FR
CP NO.3868/2024 AND FOR R2 TO R15;
V/O DATED 07.03.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R16 TO R28
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
BENGALURU IN OA No.170/00184/2022 AS NON-SPEAKING,
WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB
WP No. 5172 of 2024
C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
ORDER
Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in both the petitions.
2. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners that the issue raised in these cases relates to the seniority list of Direct Recruits and Promotees to the post of Income Tax Inspectors. It is stated that prior to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India & Others v. N R Parmar and Others1, the law was that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date when he was not borne in the service. It is submitted that the issue was considered by the Apex Court in N R Parmar's case (supra). By judgment dated 27.11.2012, it was held that for assignment of inter se seniority between Direct Recruits and Promotees, the appointments against the vacancies of a particular Recruitment year, would have to be referred 1 (2012) 13 SCC 340
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB WP No. 5172 of 2024 C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024 to. The Recruitment year was to be the year in which recruitment process for either of the modes of recruitment for a particular vacancy year is initiated.
3. It is submitted that this resulted in revised seniority list being issued, placing Direct Recruits, who were actually appointed on subsequent dates in between the Promotees of the relevant recruitment year as interpreted by the Apex Court. It is submitted that thereafter, in K. Meghachandra Singh & Others v. Ningam Siro & Others2, a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court over-ruled the decision of the two-judge Bench in N R Parmar's case (supra), and held that the date of appointment would be considered for the purpose of date of seniority in the case of Direct Recruits. However, it was made clear that the decision would not affect the inter se seniority, which has already been fixed in the light of N R Parmar's case (supra), and the decision would apply prospectively. It is contended that thereafter, revised 2 (2020) 5 SCC 689
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB WP No. 5172 of 2024 C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024 seniority list was again prepared. However, in Hariharan and others v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao and Others3, the Apex Court again doubted the proposition in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), and referred the matter for examination by a larger bench in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Mervyn Coutindo & Others v. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Others4 and the decision of a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in M. Subba Reddy & Another v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others5.
4. It is contended that in a batch of Original Applications preferred by the Direct Recruits challenging the OM dated 26.10.2021 as well as OM dated 06.05.2022, whereby the seniority had been revised in the light of K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), the Tribunal has quashed the OMs and directed the respondents not to disturb the seniority list dated 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1717 4 (1966) 3 SCR 600 5 (2004) 6 SCC 729
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB WP No. 5172 of 2024 C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024 28.07.2015 subject to the final outcome of the appeal or reference in Hariharan's case (supra).
5. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for petitioners that doubting of the decision of the three-judge bench of the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), by a later two- judge bench and the reference to a larger bench cannot result in the obliteration of the decision of the three-judge bench and that the said decision is liable to be given effect to. Reliance is placed on several decisions of the Apex Court in support of this contention.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the seniority list prepared in the year 2015 was strictly in accordance with the observations made in N R Parmar's case (supra), and that the same list is liable to be revived and operated. It is submitted that the contention that there is no list available for making promotions, is therefore incorrect and that the list has to be operated now.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB WP No. 5172 of 2024 C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the three-judge Bench in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), had reversed the ratio in N R Parmar's case (supra), and had specifically directed the preparation of the seniority list while saving the seniority list which had been prepared on the basis of the decision in N R Parmar's case (supra). It was such seniority list, which was in operation on the strength of the OMs which were under challenge before the Tribunal.
8. In view of the fact that the matter stands referred to two-judge bench in Hariharan's case (supra), the contention that the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), is no longer applicable, cannot be accepted in the light of the decision relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for petitioners. We are therefore of the opinion that in the light of the judgment of two-judge bench of the Apex Court in Hariharan's case (supra), the seniority lists which were prepared on the strength of the Judgment of
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB WP No. 5172 of 2024 C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024 the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), would have to govern the field and be operated till the larger bench answers the question as referred by Hariharan's case (supra).
9. In the above view of the matter, we direct that the petitioners shall follow the ratio of the Judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), and shall operate the seniority list accordingly. The seniority list which was prepared on the basis of the ratio in N.R. Parmar's Case shall stand protected as observed by the three-judge bench in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra). It is made clear that the seniority list as well as the promotions made will be subject to revision as and when the matter is finally settled by the larger bench constituted to decide the issue as required in Hariharan's case (supra). The impugned order shall stand modified to that extent.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:21062-DB WP No. 5172 of 2024 C/W WP No. 5118 of 2024
10. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE CP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44