Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Santosh Kumar vs Arvind Shrivastava, Secretary, M/O ... on 2 February, 2026
1
CP.No.170/00032/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.170/00032/2025
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00048/2023
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Santosh Kumar,
S/o late Bishweshwar Prasad Modi,
Aged about 41 years,
O/o the ITO, IAP-7,
Pundalik Niwas
Building, Rua-De-Qurem,
Panaji 403 001 .... Petitioner
(By Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate)
Vs.
1. Shri Arvind Shrivastava,
Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
Government of India,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. Ms. Preeti Garg,
Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Karnataka & Goa,
Bangalore 560 001
kavya shree k
CAT Bangalore
kavya shree k
2026.02.06
17:26:05+05'30'
2
CP.No.170/00032/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Ms. Rachna Shah,
Secretary,
DOPT, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001 .... Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This Contempt Petition is filed by the petitioner alleging breach and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 31.05.2024 in OA No. 48/2023 and 25.02.2025 in RA No. 01/2025.
2. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar representing the petitioner placing reliance on the language employed in order dated 31.05.2024 in OA No. 48/2023 that "the OA is allowed" vis-a- vis the relief claimed in the OA, seeking "next promotion from 01.01.2019", submitted that the promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Income Tax for the vacancy year 2019 ought to have been given to the applicant with effect from 01.01.2019, not from 01.04.2019. As such, the orders passed in OA No. 48/2023 and RA No. 01/2025 are not complied with, as directed.
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 17:26:05+05'30' 3 CP.No.170/00032/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Compliance affidavit/reply is filed on behalf of the respondents submitting that the applicant was given the promotion initially on 30.01.2020 after examining the eligibility as on 01.01.2020 (crucial date for vacancy year 2020) as per the DOPT's guidelines. Subsequently, in compliance with the directions of this Tribunal, promotion has been accorded to the applicant by allowing a three month relaxation and giving effect to the promotion with effect from 01.04.2019 (vacancy year 2019) i.e., granting promotion effective from the date after completion of eligibility service vide order dated 08.01.2025/20.01.2025. The relaxation thus operated solely to protect the applicant's seniority and promotional prospects within the framework of the Recruitment Rules and did not confer any right to claim promotion from a date anterior to the eligibility service. Thus, the claim of the applicant for promotion from 01.01.2019 would amount to granting an impermissible benefit for a period during which the applicant was admittedly ineligible and would be directly in violation of the DOPT OM dated 12.08.2021 as well as the clarification issued by this Tribunal in Review Application No. 01/2025. Learned counsel Shri Vishu Bhat representing the respondents reiterating the said grounds sought for dismissal of the Contempt Petition.
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 17:26:05+05'30' 4 CP.No.170/00032/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
4. In the original OA proceedings, this Tribunal referring to OM dated 12.08.2021 issued by the DOPT observed that "the department also has recommended the case of the applicants for relaxation to the DoPT. It is also seen that the Department of Posts has accorded relaxation in eligibility service for vacancy year 2019 up to a maximum period of 3 months. The applicants herein have been agitating the issue since the time they were hit by the modified rules, changing the crucial date to 01.01.2019, in place of 01.04.2019. Further, as per the DoPT OM of 12th August, 2021, the delegation of relaxation of eligibility service ceases from the vacancy year 2024. Before that, it was permitted." Further held that "Since the case of the applicants falls prior to 2024 and in the light of relaxation to similarly placed employees already accorded, not considering the case of the applicants for identical relaxation would be an instance of discrimination, which would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. Thus, we feel that the applicants have made out a case in their favour and, in the result, the OA is allowed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs." kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 17:26:05+05'30' 5 CP.No.170/00032/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
5. Review Application No. 01/2025 filed by the respondents came to be disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2025. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:
"5. It is clarified that since the applicants in the OA have themselves relied upon the Circular, dt.01.10.2021 of the Dept. of Posts, (Ann.A/5) and, based on the submissions, orders regarding relaxation have already been issued vide our order, dt.31.05.2024, in the OA, Para-2 of the Circular, dt.01.10.2021, needs to be highlighted, which reads as follows:
"2. Further, the relaxation is subject to the condition that actual promotions are effected only after completion of the eligibility service prescribed in the Recruitment Rules/Service Rules."
This is in consonance with the DoPT OM, dt.12.08.2021, which has clearly laid down at Para-5, as follows:
"No delegation of relaxation of eligibility service so granted to Administrative Ministries/Departments shall be available for vacancy year 2024. Further, the relaxation is subject to the condition that actual promotions are effected only after completion of the eligibility service prescribed in the Recruitment Rules/Service Rules."
6. Thus, for the purpose of relaxation, the basic principle is fixed as above with regard to the service conditions by the DoP&T, which is being followed by certain departments, as cited by the applicants in the OA.
7. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the order passed on 31.05.2024 in OA.No.48/2023 shall be implemented in the case of the applicants, and appropriate orders be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 17:26:05+05'30' 6 CP.No.170/00032/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
6. Though the aforesaid orders would not explicitly refer to the date of entitlement of the applicant whether is from 01.01.2019 or 01.04.2019, a reading of the review order wherein clarification is given refers to Para 2 of the Circular dated 01.10.2021 and Para 5 of the DOPT OM dated 12.08.2021 which makes it clear that the relaxation is subject to the condition that actual promotions are effected only after completion of the eligibility service prescribed in the Recruitment Rules/Service Rules.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondents have granted the promotion i.e., Income Tax Inspector (ITI) grade to the applicant with effect from 01.04.2019, i.e., after completion of eligibility service, modifying the effective date of the earlier promotion granted, vide order dated 08.01.2025/20.01.2025.
8. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no contempt proceedings could be proceeded with, in view of the compliance reported by the respondents as aforesaid. kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 17:26:05+05'30' 7 CP.No.170/00032/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
9. Accordingly, Contempt Petition stands closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the compliance order in accordance with law, if still aggrieved/not satisfied.
Notice stands discharged.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
kavya shree k
CAT Bangalore
kavya shree k
2026.02.06
17:26:05+05'30'