Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kennedy Raj Philips vs M/O Finance on 19 July, 2023
1
Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1902/2015
Reserved on 23.05.2023
Pronounced on 18 .07.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Sh. Kennedy Raj Philips, aged about 40 yrs,
S/o. Mr. K.M. Philips
Presently working as Income Tax Officer(OSD)
(lnv.I) CBDT, North Block, New Delhi.
R/o. 222, Azad Hind Apartments, Plot No.15,
Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi-l10077.
2. Sh. Ashish Kumar Jain, aged about 38 years,
S/o. Shri. K.M. Jain,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer (Admn.)
Office of the Director of Income Tax (PR, PP&OL)
Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
R/o. G.F-I, D-23, East Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093.
3. Sh. Subhash Kumar, aged about 37 years,
S/o. Shri Birendra Sharmna,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
Ward-73(4), Office of Commissioner of Income
Tax (TDS-1), New Delhi, Ayakar Bhawan, District
Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
R/o. Flat No.13, Plot No.4/468, Sector-4,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P-201010
4. Sh. Mithilesh Kumar Trivedi, aged about 42 yrs.
S/o. Late Bansidhar Tiwari,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer, IAP-14
2
Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
Office of Commissioner of Income Tax(Audit)-ll,
New Delhi, Room No. 2203, E-2 Block, Civic
Centre Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, J.L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-02
R/o. Flat No.5, Narmada Apartment, Sector-4
Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P-201010
5. Sh. Abhishek Kumar, aged about 41 years,
S/o. Late Attar Singh,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer (Hq.)
Office of Chief Commissioner of Income TaxX-02,
New Delhi, C R Bulding, I.P Estate, New
Delhi-02.
R/o. 241, Ground Floor, Masjid Moth, New
Delhi-49
6. Shri. Purneet Kumar Gupta, aged about 44yrs
S/o. Shri Sushil Krishan Gupta
Presently working as Income Tax Officer (Hqrs.)
(AA)
Office of Appropriate Authority,
8th Floor, Janpath Bhawan, New Delhi
R/o. M-97-98, lInd Floor, Jagat Ram Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. S.K. Das)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-01
2. Chairman.
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
3
Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
North Block, New Delhi-01
3. Principal Chief Commissioner,
of Income Tax, Delhi(CCA),
3rd Floor, Central Revenue Building,
L.P Estate, New Delhi-110002.
4. Sh. Deepak Kumar (At Serial No.1926 of
the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14).
S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building, I.P Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
5. Mr. Avinash Kumar Varnma (At Serial
No.2177 of the Final Seniority List
dated 25.05.14), S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner,
of Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building, I.P Estate,
New Delhi-i10002.
6. Mr. Sailendra Singh (At Serial No.1941l of
the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building, I.P Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
7. Mr. Nikunj Kumar Goyal(At Serial No.1950
of the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,Presently working as Income Tax
Officer,C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
4
Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
Central Revenue Building, I.P Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
8. Mr. Rajeev Kumar(At Serial No.1980 of
the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building, L.P Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
9. Mr. Prem Pal Singh(At Serial No.2160 of
the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building, LP Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
10. Mr. Gaurav Singh(At Serial No.2166 of
the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building. I.P Estate,
New Delhi-l 10002.
11. Mr. Bal Kishan Shukla(At Serial No.1970 of
the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,.
Central Revenue Building, 1.P Estate.
New Delhi-l10002.
5
Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
12. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma(At Serial No.1972
of the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known.
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building. I.P Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
13. Mr. Arun Kumar(At Serial No.2020 of
the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building, L.P Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
14. Mr. Wazir Singh(At Serial No.2162 of
the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building, I.P Estate,
New Delhi-]10002.
15. Mr. V.V Rajeevan(At Serial No.2000 of
the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building, I.P Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
16. Mr. Harish Kumar Grover(At Serial No.2234
of the Final Seniority List dated 25.05.14),
S/o. not known,
6
Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
Presently working as Income Tax Officer,
C/o. Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi(CCA), 3rd Floor,
Central Revenue Building, l.P Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Y.P. Singh)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
The present OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
"a) quashing of the impugned Final Seniority List dated 25.05.2014 (Annexure:A1) to the extent the Applicants herein have been shown junior to the officials at Serial No. SI. 1926 to 2178 of the impugned Seniority List dated 25.05.2014 and the Office Order dated 25.05.2014 [Annexure:A2) whereby their representations have been rejected arbitrarily without proper application of mind:
b) direct the officials Respondents to redraw the Final Seniority in the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors by assigning appropriate the seniority to the Applicants in the seniority list of Income Tax Inspectors according to the law declared by Hon'ble Allahabad High court in the case of Arvind Kumar Trivedi Vs. Rajeev Mohan as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also in the light of the CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990 with consequential benefits:7 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
c) pass such and further order/(s) as may be deemed just and appropriate in the premises of the present case."
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the direct recruits to the post of Income Tax Inspectors having been appointed through the selection process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for the recruitment year 1995, 1996 and 1999. In support of Applicants‟ claim learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned seniority list is erroneous and arbitrary. He draws reference to the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515 of 2005 in N.R. Parmar case decided on 27.11.2012, (2012) 13 SCC 340. Relevant portion of the same reproduced hereinbelow:-
"34. In view of the above, the Civil Appeals, the Transferred Case, as well as, the Transfer Case (filed by the direct recruits and the Union of India) are hereby allowed. The claim of the promotees, that the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, in the instant case should be assigned seniority with reference to the date of their actual appointment in the Income Tax Department is declined"
3. Learned counsel for the applicants also draws a reference to the order of this Tribunal dated 12.05.2014 in 8 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 OA No. 1854/2013, particularly on para 14.2, which reads as under:-
"14.2 In our opinion, at this stage, it is not for this Court to see as to what benefit would accrue to the applicants by recasting of the seniority list. This issue is pre-mature and not yet ripe for judicial review as the official respondents have yet to implement the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar's case. As and when such implementation is done the private respondents will be at liberty to challenge any undue benefit given to anyone."
4. Further a reference has been drawn to Annexure P14 circular dated 14.05.1990. Clause C as well as clause F thereof are reproduced as under:-
"(c) No, request for inter-charge transfer shall be entertained from a person who may otherwise be eligible to make such a request under (b) above) unless he or she has put in at least three years of service, in that grade.
X X
(f) The service rendered in the old charge will not be counted in the new charge for the purpose of seniority.
He/she will be placed at the bottom of the list of the employees of the concerned Cadre in the new Charge. Seniority in the cadre in the Charge to which person is transferred will start from the day that person reports for duty in that charge. However, he will not tank senior to any official who belongs to a bench selected on merit whose inter-se-seniority is not regulated by date of joining."
5. Learned counsel for the applicants also referred to a decision rendered in Rajeev Mohan & Ors. Vs. Arvind 9 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 Kumar Trivedi & Ors. (Annexure P-11) wherein the similar issued cropped up and Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad found the said reference in favour of the applicants therein. Attention was further drawn to Annexure P-12 stating that the matter was also taken up before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Trivedi & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Mohan & Ors. wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"S.L.P. (C) Nos 17306-17307 of 2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment of this Court in Union of India and others versus N.R. Parmar and others in support of his submission that the respondent will rank senior simply because he has been transferred from Bombay Circle to Kanpur Circle on his own request. The respondent relies, in particular, on the observations made in paragraph 7 of the judgment. We have examined the entire fact situation in the present case. We are satisfied that the impugned order passed by the High Court does not require any interference. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed"
6. Now coming to the factual scenario, the counsel for the applicants draws a reference to the final seniority list dated 25.05.2014 and state that one Shri Shailendra Singh of the „general‟ category, who was direct recruit and appointed on 03.10.2008 belongs to the batch of 2008- 10 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 2009. He further states that candidates from Sl. No. 1941 till 2177 pertain to the same direct recruitment, which is subsequent to the appointment of the applicants herein, who along with some others were appointed for the batch of 2002-2003 onwards but before the aforesaid persons mentioned herein above. He further draws a reference that in the said list persons from serial number 1969 to 2170 were also promotees who have also been placed above the applicants, and, therefore, the present seniority list is contrary to the law upheld by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. He further draws reference to the impugned rejection order dated 25.05.2014 (Annexure P-2) wherein it is written "However he will not rank senior to any officer who belongs to a batch selected on merit whose inter-se seniority is not regularized on the date of joining. Hence the Inspectors joined on inter-charge transfer have been rightly placed at the bottom of the list of employees of the concerned cadre (either PR or DR) below the batch selected merit whose on seniority is not regularized on the date of joining." and aggrieved by the same has filed the present OA.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants draws a reference that office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax of 11 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 Karnataka and Goa have already implemented the decision rendered in K. Meghachandra's case, (2020) 5 SCC 689, and the applicants herein belong to Delhi Region and similar benefits ought to have been extended in Delhi also.
8. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the present Original Application. He draws support from the counter reply filed by the respondents. Paras 4.9, 4.10, 4.13 and 4.15 of the counter reply read as under:-
"4.9 As elaborated in reply to Para-1 above, final seniority list of Income Tax Inspector issued vide letter dated 17.06.2010 were prepared on the basis of DoP&T's OM No.20011/1/2006-Estt. (D)dated 03.03.2008. In pursuance of Hon'ble SC's decision in the case of N.R. Parmar, the DOPT issued OM No.20011/1/2012-Estt. (D) dated 4.03.2014 withdrawing ab initio the OM No.20011/1/2006- Estt.(D) dated 03.03.2008. Since the OM on the basis of which seniority list of inspector dated 17.06.2010 was prepared has been withdrawn ab initio by the DOPT, seniority position assigned to the applicants in the said seniority list has no relevance now.
4.10 the date from which the Hon'ble SC decision in the case of N.R. Parmar would be implemented was clarified by the CBDT(HRD) vide their letter F.No.HRD/CM/220/14/2013-14/4275 dated 29.09.2014. The same is reproduced herewith:12 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
"The SC decision relies on the 1986 circulars of DOPT, which are, in turn, prospective in application. DoPT has also advised that the seniority has to be decided under the DOPT OMS dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986 till 27.11.2012. Thus review DPCs for all DPCS conducted till 27.11.2012 would be held as per DOPT OMs dt. 7.2.1986/3.7.1986. After 27.11.2012, the DOPT OM dt 04.03.2014 would be applicable."
Following the above instructions, seniority of inspectors has been revised following the DOPT OMS dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986 X X 4.13 A committee of the three Commissioner of Income Tax was constituted to suggest principle regarding determination of inter-se seniority of DRS and PRS with reference to the existing seniority list of Inspectors of Delhi Region in the light of judgment of Hon'ble SC in the case of N.R. Parmar, Constituting a committee of senior officers for a particular purpose is in no arbitrary. The said committee unanimously recommended that DRS joined on qualifying CGLE, 2005 should be considered for recruitment year 2006- 07 as vacancies arose in this year & requisition was also sent within this financial year itself.
X 4.15 As may be seen from this office OM dated 25.05.2014, total 121 representations with regard to inter-se seniority were received. All these representations were referred to a committee constituted for the purpose. The committee perused all representations and grouped in six categories. The recommendations of the committee had been accepted by the Pr. CCIT, Delhi. Perusal of the OM also shows that the committee examined all the cases including the cases related to the applicants and gave their recommendations (Annexure- VI). Further, It may be noted that question of reckoning seniority of DRS either from the year of vacancy or the year in which the intimation has been sent to SSC or the year in which exam was conducted or the year of selection was 13 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 discussed by the CBDT(HRD) in their letter dated 07.11.2014 which is reproduced herewith:
"The SC judgment is clear that the seniority of the DR would arise from the year in which the requisition has been sent to SSC.
However, in the case before the SC, both the year of requisition and the vacancy year were the same; The Apex Court is silent on the situation that would arise if the years were different.
In case requisition has been made in advance (l.e. before of the year in which the vacancy arises), then the vacancy year shall be adopted as the year of seniority. In case requisition has been made after the vacancy arises, then it is the year of such requisition that is material. Such an interpretation would not run contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, as clearly, wherever the letter of requisition preceded the vacancy year, the vacancy itself did not exist in the year of requisition. Thus the year of vacancy and year of requisition must be read together. Of course, the SC has explicitly held that the year of examination or the year of appointment/joining is of no relevance for this purpose. Similarly, the date of advertisement by SSC would have no relevance. Further, the year of requisition will be the year in which the requisition has been sent to the SSC."
The placement of DR inspectors of CGLE, 2005 in the year 2006-07 was in line with the above instructions. Factually, the vacancies pertaining to CGLE, 2005 was reported to the recruiting agency l.e. Staff Selection Commission in the year 2006-07 vide the following letters:
1) Vide CBDT's letter No. F.No.A-14013/1/2004-Ad.VII dated 09.05.2006-58 vacancies were intimated.
ii) Vide CBDT's letter No. F.No.A-12021/3/2006-Ad.VII dated 20.02.2007-759 vacancies were intimated.
As such, it is inappropriate to say that the respondent no.3 has acted in an arbitrary and biased manner. Moreover, the applicants are wrongly claiming that the 14 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 same principle was not followed in case of vacancies reported for year 2002-03 to 2005-06. Factually, vacancies related to the year 2002-03 to 2005-06 in the cadre of inspector was reported to the SSC in the year 2006-07 and the inspectors joined against those vacancies has been placed in the year of reporting of these vacancies to the SSC."
9. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision rendered in N.R. Parmar's (Supra) case as the decision has been taken in consonance with the dictum laid down in the said case. He further contended that an MA No. 121/2023 has been referred at the time of giving the representation which has been rejected by the impugned order. These additional documents (Annexure P- 15 to P-22) were not placed before the Competent Authority that a holistic view could have been taken by the Competent Authority, so far as seniority list is concerned. He further prayed that the matter can be remitted back for further re-consideration in light of the aforesaid additional documents (Annexure P-15 to P-22) along with a detailed representation, on behalf of the applicants if so advised.
10. We have perused the records of the case thoroughly and heard the arguments by both the counsels.
11. Here the issue is inter-se seniority of three category of employees- direct recruits, promotes and transferees from 15 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 other zones. The relevant instructions emanate from the DOPT instructions of 07.02.1986 and 03.07. 1986. Both these OMs state that the principle of rotation quota will be followed for determining the inter-se seniority of promotes and direct recruits. When direct recruits are not available, the promotes would be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority below the last position up to which it is possible to determine seniority on the basis rotation of quota with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available. The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies would be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year. These additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year shall be placed en block bellow the last promotee or direct recruit, as the case may be, in the seniority list based on the rotation of quota for that year.
12. The aforesaid principles were challenged in OA No.123 of 2003 in the Ahemdabad bench of CAT titles N.R. Parmar & ors Vs. Union of India &ors. The Tribunal in its order dated 12.1.2004 held that the seniority of direct recruits would have to determine with reference to the date of their 16 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 actual appointment. This was challenged in Gujrat High Court by Union of India in SCA No.1512 of 2004 (Union of India and ors Vs N.R. Parmar & ors). The Gujarat High Court vide its order dated 17.8.2004 upheld the decision of the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench. This was assailed by Union of India in Civil appeal No.7514-7515 of 2005 titled Union of India and ors Vs N. R. Parmar & Ors . The Apex Court in order dated 27.11.2012 reversed the order of the Gujrat High Court and upheld the sanctity of the two OMs in the year 1986 issued by the DOP&T. In the said case, the Apex Court held that:
"34. In view of the above , the Civil Appeals, the Transferred case, as well as, the Transfer case (filed by the direct recruits and the Union of India) are hereby allowed. The claim of the promottees, that the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, in the instant case should be assigned seniority with reference to the date of their actual appointment in then Income Tax Department is declined."
13. Following the judgement in N. R. Parmar‟s case, the DOPT issued OM dated 4.3.2014 defining the recruitment year to be the year of initiating the recruitment process against the vacancy year and reiterated the rota quota principle with this clarification.
17Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
14. The judgement in N. R. Parmar‟s case has established the rota and quota principle squarely. However, the apex court in K. Meghachandra Singh and Ors vs. Nigam Siro &ors in Civil Appeal no. 8833-8835 of 2019 decided on 19.11.2019 has expressed doubt about the rationale of the R. N. Parmars case. It has observed:-
38. When we carefully read the judgment in N. R. Parmar (Supra), it appears to us that the referred OMs (dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986) were not properly construed in the judgment. Contrary to the eventual finding, the said two OMs had made it clear that seniority of the direct recruits be declared only from the date of appointment and not from the date of initiation of recruitment process. But surprisingly, the judgment while referring to the illustration given Page 23/32 in the OM in fact overlooks the effect of the said illustration. According to us, the illustration extracted in the N.R. Parmar (Supra) itself, makes it clear that the vacancies which were intended for direct recruitment in a particular year (1986) which were filled in the next year (1987) could be taken into consideration only in the subsequent year‟s seniority list but not in the seniority list of 1986. In fact, this was indicated in the two OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 and that is why the Government issued the subsequent OM on 03.03.2008 by way of clarification of the two earlier OMs.
39. At this stage, we must also emphasize that the Court in N. R. Parmar (Supra) need not have observed that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for administrative delay and the gap between initiation of process and appointment. Such observation is fallacious in as much as none can be identified as 18 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 being a selected candidate on the date when the process of recruitment had commenced. On that day, a body of persons aspiring to be appointed to the vacancy intended for direct recruits was not in existence. The persons who might respond to an advertisement cannot have any service-related rights, not to talk of right to have their seniority counted from the date of the advertisement. In other words, only on completion of the process, the applicant morphs into a selected candidate and, therefore, unnecessary observation was made in N. R. Parmar (Supra) to the effect that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for the administrative delay. In the same context, we may usefully refer to the ratio in vs. Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, where it was held even upon empanelment, an appointee does not acquire any right.
15. Subsequently, the Apex Court in Hariharan vs Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao in Civil Appeal (Dairy No.12422 of 2022) in interim order dated 14.12.2022 held that:
"35. Hence, we pass the following order:
i. We are of the considered view that the following questions need to be decided by a larger Bench of five Hon‟ble Judges:
a. Whether the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra2 can be said to be a binding precedent in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo3 and the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy6? b. In absence of specific statutory rules to the contrary, when the „rotation of quota‟ rule is applicable, whether the seniority of direct recruits who were recruited in the recruitment process which 19 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 commenced in the relevant recruitment year but ended thereafter, can be fixed by following „rotation of quota‟ by interspacing them with the direct recruits of the same recruitment year who were promoted earlier during the same year?
ii. We direct the Registry to place this petition before Hon‟ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. iii. The interim relief granted on 13th July 2018 stands vacated. Effect shall be given to the impugned judgment subject to the final outcome of this appeal or reference, as the case may be. We also clarify that the seniority of promotees and direct recruits who may be appointed hereafter will be subject to the final outcome of the decision of this appeal or the decision in reference, as the case may be. Accordingly, concerned persons shall be informed in writing by the Income Tax Department."
16. In view of the aforementioned judgments by the Apex Court, the decision in R. N. Parmar‟s case and the subsequent clarification issued by DOPT in its OM dated 4.3.2014 prevail.
17. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied heavily on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in Rajeev Mohan Vs. Union of India in CWP no.23672 of 2006 along with WP(C) No. 56072 of 2010 decided on 13.4.2012. Here the issue is the inter-se seniority of direct recruits plus promotes on one hand and the transferees on the other. The Allahabad High court framed the following issues in this regard:-
20Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015
i). Whether the petitioner was entitled for restoration of his posting as Inspector Income Tax in Maharashtra Region w.e.f. his joining in the Department and was entitled for promotion as Income Tax Officer retrospectively?
ii). Whether the petitioner was entitled to add his earlier period of working as Income Tax Inspector before his joining at Kanpur for the purposes of seniority and other benefits.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the sanctity of CBDT „s circular dated 14.04.1990 which clearly provides that for the purpose of seniority, any service rendered in earlier charge , from where a person is transferred , shall not be counted and his seniority shall begin from the date when he joins in the new charge and all claims of promotion in the earlier charge or confirmation shall come to an end. The Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court held issue nos. 2 & 3 against the petitioners.
18. The Allahabad High Court‟s decision was assailed by the private respondents in the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 17306-17307/2012 and the Apex Court vide its decision dated 13.04.2012 upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court.
19. Neither the present applicants in their pleadings in the OA nor the learned counsel for the applicants have 21 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 substantiated as how the principles established in R. N. Parmar‟s (Supra) case as well as in Rajiv Mohan‟s case (supra) have been violated by the respondents while drawing the seniority list of Inspectors vide their circular dated 25.5 2014. The applicants in their grounds in the OA have merely stated that the impugned final seniority list is contrary to the Clause 2(f) of CBDT Circular dated 14.5.1990, without substantiating this assertion. This assertion cannot be accepted on face value. Perusal of the seniority list date 25.5.2014 shows that the principle of rota quota has been followed a la the R. N. parmar‟s case (supra) and the DOPT instructions issued to implement this judgement.
19.1 Furthermore, the applicants have asserted that the direct recruits cannot take seniority from the year in which the recruitment process began. This is the reason they have challenged the seniority list. As it has been mentioned earlier, the Allahabad High Court in Rajiv Mohan (supra) case has upheld the CBDT circular dated 14.05.1990. The applicants have been duly assigned seniority from the date of joining in Delhi Zone. The direct recruits who were junior to them in the recruitment merit but joined Delhi Zone 22 Item No. 20/ C-5 1902/2015 directly could have got seniority over the applicants. The applicants have lost their original seniority because they preferred not to stay in their parent zones and got transferred to be absorbed in Delhi Zone.
20. In view of the above, the OA lacks merit and hence is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/mk/