Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Dinesh Bansal on 7 November, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.13510/2022 (S-CAT)
c/w
WRIT PETITION NO.11056/2022 (S-CAT)
WRIT PETITION NO.19451/2022 (S-CAT)
IN W.P.NO.13510/2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
FINANCE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX,
KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION,
QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.B.NARGUND, ASG AND
SMT. SHUBHA.S, CGC.)
2
AND:
1. SATISH GAUDAPPA BAGEWADI
S/O SHRI G B BAGEWADI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
O/O THE JCIT, VIJAYPUR RANGE,
VIJAYPUR - 586 101.
2. NITHIN V.,
INSPECTOR,
O/O THE ADDITIONAL CIT,
RANGE-4(3),
BMTC BUILDING,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 095.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER BY WAY OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
PORTION OF ORDER PASSED IN OA NO.170/00695/2019 DATED
27/11/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
GRANTING OF CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IS CONCERNED AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
BENGALURU IN CP NO.170/39/2020 ETC.
IN W.P.NO.11056/2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
FINANCE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
3
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX,
KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION,
QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.B.NARGUND, ASG AND
SMT. SHUBHA.S, CGC.)
AND:
DINESH BANSAL
S/O SHRI SIRI PAI BANSAL
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX (TU)
7TH LOOR, BMTC BUILDING,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 095.
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER BY WAY OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
PORTION OF ORDER PASSED IN O.A.NO.170/00654/2019 DATED
27/11/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
GRANTING OF CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IS CONCERNED AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
BENGALURU IN CP NO. 170/31/2020 ETC.
IN W.P.NO.19451/2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
FINANCE SECRETARY,
4
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX,
KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION,
QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.B.NARGUND, ASG AND
SMT. SHUBHA.S, CGC.)
AND:
ANTARA SI
D/O SRI BISWANATH SI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O O/O THE PCIT-5,
BMTC BUILDING,
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 095.
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER BY WAY OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
PORTION OF ORDER PASSED IN OA NO.170/00694/2019 DATED
27/11/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
GRANTING OF CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IS CONCERNED AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
BENGALURU IN CP NO.170/49/2020 ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR "PRELIMINARY
HEARING" THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General along with learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The writ petitions involve similar questions, hence, taken up for disposal by this common order.
3. The issue that is primarily canvassed before this Court is; whether consequential benefits would also include a salary in a post in which, the applicant has not worked?
4. The facts in a nutshell are that the applicants were all serving as Inspectors in the Department of Income Tax. That certain others who were similarly appointed and placed came to be transferred to the regions wherein, the private respondents were working and such transfers were effected on the voluntary request of the said employees. On account of which, they were placed below the applicants in the order of seniority as they lost the seniority in view of the transfer being a request transfer and the same being in 6 accordance with the rules, the same was also accepted by the officers. The said seniority list placing them below the applicants was not called in question. The undisputed fact is that despite they being below in the ranking in the seniority list, but when it came to granting promotion, the said officers who were juniors to the applicants on account of having given up their seniority due to the request transfer, their services rendered earlier were counted and it was held that they having completed three years were entitled for promotion despite they being juniors to the applicants, who admittedly had not yet completed the three years and they having a few months left.
5. The applicants aggrieved by the same, approached the tribunal and sought for consideration of their case for promotion with retrospective effect. The tribunal accepting the case of the applicants held that the applicants were entitled for promotion from the date on which their juniors were promoted and while ordering the 7 applications, was further pleased to order that they are also entitled for all consequential benefits.
6. It is the case of the petitioners/department that they have complied with the order dated 27.11.2019 and in their understanding, consequential benefits cannot include salary attached to a post in which they had not worked. We are unable to countenance this submission. It is trite law that it is not open for the litigant to interpret the judgment and we also do not propose to enter upon the correctness of the said submission as the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay alone. Its is not in dispute that the order has been partially complied with by granting promotion to the respondents from the date on which the promotion was given to the junior and now when contempt petitions are preferred, the instant writ petitions are filed belatedly that too after a passage of nearly 2 ½ years.
7. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions stand rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 8
8. The dismissal of the writ petitions shall not come in the way of the petitioners seeking any clarification from the tribunal so far as grant of consequential benefits particularly regarding entitlement of arrears of salary for the period not worked.
9. Reserving such liberty, petitions stand dismissed. In view of disposal of the petitions, pending applications, if any do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Chs CT-HR