Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr. R.K. Arora Son Of Sh. G.M. Arora vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No. 2266/2008
MA 251/2009
New Delhi this the 21st day of April, 2009.
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J)
Honble Mr. N. D. Dayal, Member (A)
1. Mr. R.K. Arora son of Sh. G.M. Arora,
Assistant,
22-A, Gali No.9, Indira Park, Palam Road,
New Delhi.
2. Charan Singh son of Late Sh. Prem Sukh,
Superintendent,
D-765, Gali No. 38, Chattarpur,
New Delhi.
3. Surinder Singh son of Sh. J.B.Singh,
Assistant,
H-243, Nanakpura, New Delhi-110021
4. Hari Chand son of Shri Mansa Ram,
Assistant,
VPO Kondal, The Hathin,
Haryana
5. Mudita Saxena son of Shri R.L.Saxena,
Assistant,
27/27, Nav Shakti Sadan,
Rohini, Sector-13, Delhi.
6. Sudeep Kr. Kandwal son of Shri G.P. Kandwal,
Assistant,
B-2, Find Home Apartments, Phase-I,
Mayur Vihar,
Delhi-110091
7. Promila Rawat wife of Sh. Dinesh Rawat,
Assistant,
460, Saraswati Vihar,Op. DLF Phase-II,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Vijay Laxmi wife of Shri A.K. Chauhan,
Assistant,
C-5/51, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.
Ajit Kumar Gupta son of Late Sh. H.L. Gupta,
Assistant,
315, Jahaz Apartment, Inder Enclave,
Rohtak Road, New Delhi- 110087
P.S. Bisht son of Sh. R.S. Bisht
Upper Division Clerk
G- 208, Nauroji Nagar,
New Delhi.
Bijju Mariadas son of Sh. V.O. Argustine,
Upper Division Clerk,
4C/ 4103, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad.
12. Geeta Jain wife of Sh. Sandeep Jain,
Upper Division Clerk,
C-1/15, Printer Apartment, Rohini,
Sector-13, Delhi.
Maqsood Ali Shah
Son of Late Sh. S. Manzoor Ali Shah
Upper Division Clerk,
H. No. 484, Chatta Haji Mohd. Yusof Chitla
Gate, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-6.
Ajay Sharma
Son of Late Shri S. P. Sharma,
Upper Division Clerk,
L-2/108-A, DDA Flats, Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
Jawahar Lal Sah,
Son of Late Sh. Bhagelu Sah,
Upper Division Clerk,
375, I.T. Colony, Pitampura, Delhi.
Lallan Chaudhary,
Son of Late Sh. Viswanath Chaudhary,
Upper Division Clerk,
349, I.T. Colony, Pitampura,
Delhi.
17. Sandeep Pilani
Son of Sh. Suraj Prakash,
Upper Division Clerk,
109- C, Pkt-1, Mayur Vihar,
Phase- 1, Delhi.
18. Raghuvinder Kalia
Son of Late Sh. S. P. Sharma,
Lower Division Clerk,
160-A Pkt. A/3, Ph-III, Mayur Vihar,
Delhi.
Chanchal D/o Shri Mahabir Singh,
Lower Division Clerk,
H. No. 57, Dhirpur Village,
Near Nirankari Colony, Delhi-9
Prem Kumar
Son of Late Sh. S.R. Ghai,
Lower Division Clerk,
115/9, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi.
Kishan Singh
Son of Late Sh. Lal Singh,
Lower Division Clerk,
29-E, Sector-IV, Raja Bazar,
Gol Market, New Delhi-110 001.
Nand Raj Singh
Son of Late Shri Bhola Ram,
Lower Division Clerk,
F-80, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110 094.
Gajraj Singh
Son of Late Shri Bhola Ram,
Lower Division Clerk,
Village Tirgi, P.O. Rotoul,
Distt, Bhagpat, U.P.
Digamber Prasad
Son of Shri Narain Prasad,
Peon,
D-695, Kidwai Nagar, Delhi.
Lakhmi Chand
Son of Sh. Hari Singh,
Peon,
H.No. 273, Guru Ram Das Nagar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
Mohan Singh Dangi,
Son of Late Shri S.S. Dangi,
Peon,
806, Ghagra Appartment, Sector-III,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad (U.P. ).
Rajpal Singh
Son of Shri Rajbir Singh,
Peon,
7/314, Khichripur, Delhi.
Ranjeet Singh
Son of Shri Kundan Singh,
Peon,
14/166, P.K. Road, Mandir Marg,
New Delhi- 110 001.
Rajinder Singh Bisht,
Son of Shri Daulat Singh
Peon,
J-340, Sewa Nagar, New Delhi.
Dharam Veer Singh,
Son of Shri Badle Singh,
Peon,
Village Khodna Khurd, P.O. Surajpur,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, (U.P.).
Narender Singh,
Son of late Shri Bhupal Singh,
Peon,
570, I.T. Colony, Pitampura, Delhi
Kishori Lal,
Son of Late Sh. Moolchand,
Peon,
WZ-147, Phase-1, Om Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Prahlad Singh,
Son of Shri Amar Singh,
Peon,
H. No. A-23, Tajpur Pahari,
Budh Vihar Colony,
Badarpur, Delhi-110 044.
Jeet Singh,
Son of Shri Ganga Singh,
Peon,
240, I.T. Colony, Pitampura, Delhi.
Kalyani Saha,
Wife of Shri P.K. Saha,
Peon,
J-85, Gali No.5, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi- 110 092.
Hari Bahadur,
Son of Shri Rampal Singh,
Daftry,
E-737,Gali No. 22, Purvi Gokul Pur,
Delhi-110 094.
Azad Singh
Son of Shri Rattan Lal,
Daftry,
Goan Balli, Distt. Baghput (U.P.).
Sohanvir Singh,
Son of Shri Indraj Singh,
Watchman,
Pkt-L, 172-C, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110 095.
Ishwar Dass
Son of Shri Vishnath Sharma,
Watchman,
609, I.T. Colony, Pitampura,
New Delhi.
Ashok Kumar
Son of Shri Bishambhar,
Watchman,
Village Barangpur, Nai Basti,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar,
Dadri ( U.P.).
Ajay Rathi
Son of Shri K.S. Rathi,
Frash,
H. No. 31/3, Gali No. 1, Shankar Garden,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
Monika Batra wife Shri Pramod Batra,
Stenographer,
53, Parmarth Appartment, Vikaspuri,
Delhi.
Vahiya Ali Khan
Son of Late Shri IIyas Ali,
Stenographer,
407, I.T. Colony, Pitampura, Delhi.
Iqbal Kaur wife of Sh. Mahendu Singh,
Stenographer,
144, Jheel Kuranja, Delhi- 110 051.
Narender Singh,
Son of Late Sh. Bhim Singh,
Stenographer,
C-5/166-A, Keshav Puram,
Delhi-110 035.
Ambika Pillai wife of Sh.V. A. Pillai,
Senographer, KD-263, Pitampura,
Delhi.
Lalita Gera wife of Sh. P.C. Gera,
Stenographer,
G-11, Mukram Garden, Tilak Nagar,
Delhi.
Raj Kumar son of Late Sh. Devi Lal,
Stenographer,
2106/4, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj,
New Delhi.
Virender Gupta son of Sh. Chander Gupta,
Stenographer,
D- 809, Mandir Marg, Gole Mkt.,
New Delhi.
Rajinder Kumar Arora
Son of Sh. Om Prakash Arora,
Superintendent,
5-D, Pocket-A, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi- 95.
Km. Sarla Sachdeva
Daughter of Kanhaya Lal Sachdeva,
Superintendent,
H- 117, DDA Flats, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi.
Ghanshyam son of Sh. Raja Ram,
Research Assistant,
H. No. 312, V & P.O. Karala, Delhi-81.
Radhey Shyam son of Sh. Benwari Lal,
Research Assistant,
53, Income Tax Colony, Uttari Pitampura,
Delhi.
Neelam Raichand
Wife of Sh. Arun Kumar Raichand,
Assistant,
9, Mausam Vihar, Delhi-51
55. Urmil Bhatia son of Sh. Gulshan Bhatia,
Assistant,
C-67, X-3, Dilshad Colony, Pitampura,
Delhi-110 088.
Bhagwan Sah son of Satya Narain Sah,
Assistant,
462, Income Tax Colony, Pitampura,
Delhi-110 088.
Anand Dinesh son of Mansa Ram,
Assistant,
170, Income Tax Colony, Pitampura,
Delhi-110 088.
Sushma Sharma wife of Vinod Kumar Sharma,
Assistant,
Q-33, Sector- 12, Noida (U.P.).
Dhanesh Prasad son of P. Dutt,
Assistant,
H-626, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi.
Subhash Chand son of Sant Lal,
Assistant,
212, Income Tax Colony, Pitam Pura,
Delhi-110 088.
K.G. Mathur son of K.L. Mathur,
Assistant,
Q. No. 519, Sector-9, R. K. Puram,
Delhi.
Raj Kumar son of Sh. Har Sarup,
Assistant,
V & P.O. Bamnoli, Jhajjar,
Haryana.
Ramesh Ram Arya,
Son of Shri Mohan Lal,
U.D.C.,
B-4/96, Paryatan Vihar, Vasundhra Enclave,
Delhi- 110 096.
Suresh Kumar Sagar,
Son of Shri Munni Lal,
U.D.C.
H. No. 166, Basant Nagar, Padam Singh Road,
New Delhi.
Anju Dua wife of Sh. Sanjay Dua,
U.D.C.
839, Sector 21C, Faridabad, Haryana.
Hira Lal Kurdia,
Son of Shri Nathu Ram,
U.D.C.
16/360-E, Bapa Nagar, Padam Singh Road,
New Delhi.
Darshan Singh,
Son of Sube Singh,
U.D.C.,
Village Melha Magra,
P.O. Chhetera Bhadur Pur,
Sonepat, H.R.
Naresh Pal
Son of Har Pal Singh,
U.D.C.
C-1/109, New Kondli, Delhi-110 096.
Surender Pal Malik
Son of Shri Dilbag Singh,
U.D.C.
K-5A, Narela, Ashram Road,
Delhi.
Bijender Singh Dagar
Son of Shri G.D. Dagar,
U.D.C.
42, Type-II, Moti Bagh, Delhi.
Mohan Singh
Son of Durga Singh Chauhan,
L.D.C.
119, Income Tax Colony,
Uttari Pitam Pura, Delhi.
Ms. Rajni Sharma,
D/o Late Shri O.P. Sharma,
Sector-D, 664, Mandir Marg,
DIZ Area, New Delhi-110001
Bhupender Kumar son of Keshev Dev,
L.D.C.
H.No. 82/A-1, Street No.2, East Moti Bagh,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi- 110 007.
Virender Kumar son of Har Phool Singh
L.D.C.
WC- 14, Behind- 21A, Janpath, Delhi.
Renu Sachdeva wife of Ramesh Sahdeva,
Steno Gr.1,
43, Gujrawala Town-II, Delhi.
Nirmala Bagga wife of Sumsn Bagga,
Steno Gr. I
H.No. 178, Village Khirki, P.O. Mahavir Nagar,
Delhi-110 017.
Neeru Pritam wife of Pritam Singh
Steno Gr.I
43-C, DG-2, Vikas Puri, Delhi-18.
Raj Kamboj wife of Sh. P.K. Kamboj,
Steno Gr. I,
H-13, B.K. Dutt Colony,
Near Jor Bagh, New Delhi.
Mahesho Devi wife of Suresh Chand,
Steno Gr. II,
RZF- 908/3, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110 045.
Renu Hasija wife of K.C. Hasija
Steno Gr. II,
47-B, G & JU, Uttri Pitam Pura,
Delhi-110088
Sumita Batra wife of P.R. Batra
Steno Gr. II,
Pocket-B, Flat No. 55-C, Gangotri Enclave,
Alaknanda, Delhi.
Krishna Sharma wife of Sh. Ajay Sharma,
Steno. Gr. II
L-II/108, A, DDA Flat, Kalkaji, Delhi.
Neelam Hans wife of Sh. L. B.Hans,
Steno. Gr. II,
H. No. 298, Sector-3, Faridabad, Haryana.
Ritu Kakkar wife of Sh. Rajan Kakkar,
Steno. Gr. II,
12/5, Gul Road, Windsor, Shipra Sun City,
Indra Puram, Gaziabad.
Ram Naresh Rawat son of Chirkut Rawat,
Gestener Operator,
RZI- 17 B, West Sagar Pur, Delhi.
Kamal Singh son of Sh. Ram Singh,
Daftry,
443, Income Tax Colony, Uttari Pitam Pura,
Delhi.
Omkar Singh son of Mansa Ram,
Daftry,
H. No. 38, Vill. & P.O. Bijwasan,
New Delhi- 110 061.
Gopal Singh Negi,
Son of Sh. Mohan Singh Negi,
Peon
F-35, Gali No. 5A, East Vinod Nagar,
Delhi.
89. Mohan Singh son of Sh. Kuwar Singh
Peon
A-88, Minto Road Complex, Delhi.
90. Moti Ram son of Shri Ram Avadh
Peon
A-26, Ghazipur Village, Delhi.
Virender Kumar
Son of Shri Ram Prasad Sahani,
Peon
6/20, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
92. Lalit Sharma son of Sh. Jag Mohan Sharma
Peon
C-1/12, Budh Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-41
Sh. Adarsh Kumar
S/o Shri Inder Singh
DB-78/A, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi-110064.
Madho Singh son of Sh. Tej Singh
Peon
802, Sharda, Sector-IV, Vaishali,
Ghaziabad.
Raj Kumar son of Sh. Puran Chanad
Peon
E-114, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar
Complex, Delhi.
Ashok Kumar Sah son of Sh. Shivji Shah
Peon,
K-304, Seva Nagar,Delhi.
Nagender Yadav son of Sh. Binda Yadav,
Peon
H. No. 508, Ghagra Tower, Sector-4,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad
Narain Singh son of Sh. Dalip Singh
Peon
15, 16, Vyay Khand, Indra Puram,
Ghaziabad.
Angoori Devi wife of Sh. Bishamber Dutt
Watchman,
29, Ali Ganj, Kotla, Delhi.
Heera Lal Mehto
Son of Shri Bangru Meho,
Watchman,
67/C Block, Nagli Vihar, Najafgarh,
Delhi.
Harish Kumar son of Madan Lal
Watchman
C/15 A, Mahavir Enclave, Mandir Vali Gali,
Delhi.
102. Suresh Devi wife of Sh. Ram Chand
Watchman,
6/18, Khichri Pur, Delhi.
Sh. Prahlad Singh son of Sh. Kunwar Singh
Peon,
A- 252, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002
P.K. Shakuntala wife of Sh. P.L.S. Babu
Stenographer
B-67, Saraswati Kunj Society, I.P. Extension,
Patpar Ganj, Delhi.
105. P.G. Kirar son of Late Sh. Girraj Prasad
Superintendent,
L.P. 61-A, Mourya Enclave, Pitam Pura,
Delhi.
Shri Arun Parsoya
Son of Shri Babu Lal
R/o Qtr, No. 125/6, Railway Colony,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
D.K. Verma son of Sh. D.P. Verma
Assistant,
B-50, Ramprastha, Ghaziabad.
Suresh son of Late Shri Raja Ram
Assistant,
L-2.116, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, Delhi.
Ajit Singh Soni
Son of Late Sh. B.S. Soni
Assistant,
121, Jahaz Apartment, Inder Enclave,
Rohtak Road, New Delhi- 110 0187
Y.R. Rathi son of Late Sh. U.S. Rathi,
Assistant,
15/565, Jatwara, Bahadurgarh, Distt
Jhajjar, Haryana.
Sunita Gupta wife of Sh. J.P. Gupta,
Assistant,
118, Income Tax Colony, Pitampura, Delhi.
112. P. Subba Rao son of Sh. P. Ranga Rao,
Assistant,
5-J, CGH Complex, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi.
113. R.S. Rana son of Sh. Raj Singh Rana
Assistant,
Plot No. 639, Vill & P.O. Ghevra, Delhi.
Rattan Singh son of Sh. Raghubir Singh,
Assistant,
Vill. & P.O. Rithala, Delhi.
Moti Lal Dhamija son of Sh. N.L.Dhamija
Steno ( Gr. 1)
H. No. 488, Sector-16, Faridabad- 121 002.
M.C. Prashar son of Sh. R.K. Prashar
Steno ( Gd. I)
641, Chiragh Delhi, New Delhi-110007.
Girija Gopinath wife of Sh.C. Gopinath
Steno ( Gr. II)
H. No. A-403, Vashundra Vally Apartment,
Sector-6, Vashundra, Gaziabad.
Jagdish Kumar son of Sh. Sher Singh
Steno ( Gr. II),
H-2/32, First Floor, Sector-16,
Rohini, Delhi.
Anju Bajaj wife of Sh. Sunil Bajaj
Steno ( Gr. II),
A-1165, Sector-26, Noida.
120. R. Sunita wife of Sh. S. Rama Krishnan
Steno ( Gr. II)
010. White House Apartments, Sector-13,
Rohini, Delhi.
Prabhjot Kaur wife of S. Gurmeet Singh
Steno ( Gd. II ),
34, Sultanpur Extension, Mehrauli,
New Delhi.
122. Shashi Prabha Arora
Wife of Sh. J. L. Arora,
U.D.C.
H. No. 7962, Kharia Mohalla, Roshenara Road,
Delhi-110 007.
Jai Prakash
Son of Sh. Ganpat Singh,
U.D.C.
100 E, Pocket A-3, Mayur Vihar, Phase-3
Delhi- 110 096.
V.K. Goel son of Sh.J.S.Goel
U.D.C.
A-376, Moti Bagh-1, New Delhi-21
Manorma Negi wife of Sh. J.S. Negi
UDC
D-54, Sector-12, Noida.
126. Rajeet Kataria
Son of Late Sh. Satnarayan Kataria,
U. D.C.
RZ-G-91, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi-41
127. Radha Rani wife of Late Sh. J.K. Sharma
U.D.C.
254 A, Shyam Park, Main Ram Lila Ground,
Sahibadh, Ghaziabad.
128. Surendra Singh son of Sh. Madan Singh
LDC,
RZ-F-114/A, Raj Nagar, Part-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi- 110 045
129. Vinod Kumar Lohmore,
Son of Sh.R.S. Lohmore,
L.D.C.
D-3/3394, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70
130. Lalita Rani wife of Sh. Sbemer Chand
Steno ( Gd. III)
F-53, Sector- 20, Noida.
131. Ram Kumar
Son of Late Shri Karuwa Ram,
Chowkidar
H. No. 1051, I-II, Gali No. 13,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
132. Naresh Kumar
Son of Shri Babu Lal
Faresh
House No. 392, Sector-3 M.B. Road,
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
133. Sarvan Mahto
Son of Shri Bali Mahto
Peon
C-104, Sewa Nagar, New Delhi-110 003
134. Murti Devi
Wife of Late Shri Ber Singh
Peon
H. No. 317, Feroze Ghandhi Colony No.1,
Gurgaon (Haryana)
135. Ram Naresh
Son of Late Shri Bharat Prasad
Peon
RZ-1-102, Gali No.8, Sagar Pur West,
New Delhi-46
136. Subhash Chand
Son of Late Shri Chandi Lal
Peon
H. No. 152, Gali No. 11, Beigkam Colony,
Ballabgarh.
137. Keshar Chand
Son of Shri Keshori Lal
Peon
E -72, Sector-15, Noida (UP).
138. Bejinder Kumar
Son of Late Shri Ram Nath Gupta
Peon
E-217, Sector-24, Rohini, New Delhi-85.
139. Madan Lal
Son of Late Shri Gerdhilal
Peon
A-95, Minto Road,New Delhi-110002.
140. Jaiveer Singh
Son of Late Shri Jamadar Singh
Peon
H. No. 304 A, Gali No. 8 Phase
Shiv Vihar Karwal Nagar,
Delhi-110 094.
Raghunath Prasad
Son of Sh. Ram Nandan Prasad
Peon
Rani Khada, C.No. 82, Bhagya Vihar,
Delhi-110 081.
Nanda Dutt
Son of Late Shri Mohal Lal,
Peon
A-103, Chander Vihar,
Fazal Vihar, Mandawali,
New Delhi- 110 092
Raj Singh
Son of Late Shri Mir Singh
Peon
Village Kanonda Tehsil Bahadurgarh
Distt. Rohtak (Haryana)
144. Maheshwati wife of Late Shri Rajbir
Chowkidar
House No. 545, Jatav Bastia Darya Pur Kala
Delhi-110039
145. Kamlesh Devi
Wife of Shri Ram Nath Chauhan,
Chowkidar
House No. 279, School Block Shakar Pur,
New Delhi.
146. Ramesh Kumar
Son of Shri Syam Singh
Chowkidar
6/84, Trilok Puri East,
Delhi-110 091.
147. Shri Bhopal Singh
Son of Shri Mam Chand
L.D.C.
H. No. 811, Gali No.7, Govind Puri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110 019
148. Dasu Ram
Son of Dhaneshwar
538, Type- II, Income Tax Col.
Pitampura, Delhi.
149 Smt. Sarita Kukreja,
W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar,
43, Triveni Apartment,
West Enclave, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034.
150. Mr. Chander Mohan,
S/0 Late K.N. Dhayani,
323, Income Tax Colony,
Pitampura, Delhi-11003
151. Sh. Girish Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal,
F- 1825, Netaji Nagar,
New Delhi-110023.
152. Sh. Prakash Chand
S/o Nand Lal
R/o 516, Income Tax Colony,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
153. Ms. Bimla
W/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar
1661, Laxmi Bai Nagar,
New Delhi-110023
Sh. Khem Chand
S/o Late Shri Hari Dutt Sharma,
29, Ali Ganj Kotla,
Delhi. .. Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Amit Chadha, Sr. Counsel with Shri Sachin Suri, Ms. Namitha Mathews and Shri Rahul Sahay )
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through
Deputy Secretary (AD-VII),
Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT),
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi-110011
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002
4. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation),
E-2, IIIrd Floor Ara Centre,
Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
( By Advocate Shri V. P. Uppal )
O R D E R
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (j).
A Division Bench of this Tribunal on 21.04.2007 had disposed of OA 1164/2006 wherein one hundred and fifty applicants, who had been working as Group `C and `D staff of the office of Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) ( for short `DGIT), had highlighted some of their grievances. It had been pointed out that they had been subjected to discrimination vis-`-vis their counterparts in the Department, and appropriate directions for redressing their grievances are required to be issued. The substratum of their argument had been a recommendatory report prepared by specifically constituted anomaly committee, which advocated that the staff in the DGIT required to be merged with the other streams of the Department and in the matter of cadre controlling authority, there should be uniformity. The grievance was that notwithstanding the recommendation as above, hardly any follow up steps had been taken.
2. When the matter was pending before the Principal Bench on behalf of the Department, it has been conceded that the issue was being appropriately looked into, and as the case study involved steps like restructuring, repatriation and amendment of the special rules, it proved to be a time consuming measure in spite of efforts taken to come up with a final decision. It had been offered that the work relating to the decision, including the necessity for restructuring of posts, framing of rules, etc. could be expected in about one year. The Bench had disposed of the application, granting eight months time, by which period the respondents were to apprise the applicants of the decision taken, including the issue of implementation. However, within the time bargained, steps were not completed which resulted in the filing of CP 52 of 2008. The respondents had come up with an affidavit at that point of time, wherein it had been indicated that taking into account various aspects, a decision for merger of non-gazetted and other staff in the various Directorates to form a unified cadre was being contemplated. This, of course, was far more complex than the original proposal. Department had specifically invited the attention of the Tribunal to the letter of Directorate General of Income Tax to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 22.08.2008. It had been submitted that there was no scope to allege that any contempt was involved and rather the effort was to pressurize. It had been found that hardly there was any enquiry to the allegation needed. The application as above had, therefore, been closed on 10.04.2008, with liberty to the applicants concerned to agitate over the matter, as admissible under law.
3. In the present OA, one hundred and fifty four applicants have challenged the proceedings as referred to earlier and have requested that the applicants are to be brought at par with others, removing the anomalies that are there as harness and for directing the implementation of the report of the Anomaly Committee passed as early as during 2002. The minutes dated 18.03.2008, is also separately challenged because it disclosed the mind of the Department. Inter alia, it was gatherable that the recommendations of 2002 indeed required to be gone into in detail and since a new Directorate of HRD had been set up and the cadre restructuring being part of their job, a revised cadre review exercise was felt as required and the Directorate was contemplating to submit proposal to the Board for consideration, in matters such as cadre review, determination of staff strength, pay scales as well as the changes to be incorporated in the recruitment rules. As could be seen from the submissions made, the applicants apprehend that the existing report of the anomaly committee is thereby sidelined, and it is vital for their cause that it needs to be resurrected.
4. We had heard senior counsel Shri Amit Chadha for the applicants and Shri V.P. Uppal, counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. The reliefs that the applicants expect even as of now are elusive, and according to them passage of every single day, ensure that they do not get what they deserve. But notwithstanding the stand taken by Mr. Uppal appears to be reasonable. While remedying service issues which have far reaching consequences, as has been cautioned by the Supreme Court in P.C. Joshi & Ors. Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors. (2003 (2) SCC 632), the larger parameters cannot be overlooked. In very categorical terms, the Supreme Court has held that in matters of determination of condition of service, amendment of rules, constitution/classification or abolition of posts/cadres, categorization of service, amalgamation, bifurcation of departments, reconsitution, restructuring of the pattern of service, etc. principally executive policy is to prevail. Therefore, they are within the exclusive realms of the State. This is, of course, subject to the restrictions and limitations, the constitutional provisions prescribe. The Court had gone to the extent of observing that Government servants ordinarily have only the right to get ensured that benefits already earned are safeguarded and it is not within their province to challenge the authority of State to make amendments or alteration in the rules, as the executive feels to cope up with new situations.
6. It is well settled that in normal course, courts do not interfere with the right of the Government to frame rules or in any specify pattern, as the courts feel or wish them to be, since the rule making powers are specially the prerogative of the Administration.
7. However, since senior counsel had generally addressed us about the merits of the contentions raised in the OA, we may as well refer to the points, which had been highlighted so as to see whether it may be necessary or possible for us to interfere in the issue.
8. Chairman of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) was to function as the cadre controlling authority in respect of all non-gazetted staff of the Department of Income Tax. This was including the staff working in the DGIT of different regions. However, as far as the Group `C and `D staff of DGIT, Delhi, is concerned, the pattern as above were not followed and the DGIT (Investigation) continued to be the cadre controlling authority. The resultant position was that although the staff attached to the DGIT of more than a dozen number of regions such as Calcutta, Chennai, Mumbai, etc. were under the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT), since the applicants were under a separate authority, the applicants were disabled from equating themselves with their colleagues in matter of taking departmental examinations. Their rights of promotion were severally restricted whereas their counterparts had better avenues. This is stated to be discriminatory. As far as Group `A and `B officers of DGIT were concerned, the CCIT was the cadre controlling authority. An anomalous position was that persons who had come from other DGIT regions, who were working at Delhi, had still their cadre controlling authority, as CCIT. Therefore, there was a direct discrimination, in that persons who were attending to the same nature of jobs, had better promotional channels. Frequently there were transfers under the CCIT to DGIT, but such officers continued to be governed by the set of rules, which always governed them and the distinction, therefore, was evidently artificial. The principal submission, therefore, was that even if there was justification initially to treat them as a cadre by themselves, by passage of time, it became more and more clear that such a distinction practically served no purpose, and were being held on without any valid purpose. The discrimination was real and hurt them career wise.
9. The applicants refer to the formation of the anomaly committee and highlights that with very strong supporting reasons in the year 2002, a report had been submitted which advocated for discontinuing the practice. The staff of DGIT, Delhi were to be brought under the control of CCIT for all purposes. It has also been pointed out that when restructuring of the income tax Department had been carried out in the year 2001, the applicants had been omitted from the resultant benefits, and a number of their colleagues had lost opportunities which normally they could have aspired for.
10. Senior counsel submits that in view of the earlier decision of the CAT, which, in fact, incorporated the concession made by the Department, it would not have been possible for the respondents to retrace their steps. In other words, the suggestion was that the anomaly committee report requires acceptance even on the showing of the Department and the directions issued were only to ensure that since the matter was long pending, appropriate follow up steps as required for carrying out restructuring, to complete the merger within a stipulated time. The present stand that the report of committee required to be shelved, in effect is to ensure that the directions of the Tribunal are watered down. This is impermissible. Therefore, the impugned orders should not have been permitted to operate, as the highlighted and accepted grievances of the applicant, should have been redressed by a positive approach. Now that reluctance is shown, it was time for the Tribunal to step in and issue directions whereby the Department was compelled to accept the anomaly committees report, carry out the restructuring process and further direct the Government to come up with the amended rules so as to give a quietus to the issue. They could have attended to other issues at leisure, and in their discretion, as acceptance of the claims of the applicants were not to result in any particular inconvenience.
11. Mr. Uppal, however, submits that the issue is really complex and despite the urgency shown by the applicants the insistence for finalizing their demands might be misplaced as the larger interest of the Department, and the persons who might be affected because of the proposed steps, cannot be ignored. Citing the averments in the counter reply, it is highlighted that a cadre review exercise for restructuring of the Department as a whole has been initiated duly taking notice of the report of the 6th Central Pay Commission, and the Government orders which followed. The committee is constituted of officials as well as representatives of the employees associations, and the recommendations are awaited. Even as of now, by circulars issued, suggestions have been invited and the report is likely to come for consideration in a few months time. He further submits that there was no direction in the judgment, as understood by the applicants that the report of the anomaly committee requires to be accepted in toto.
12. According to his instructions, restructuring, as suggested by the Anomaly Committee, cannot be carried out in isolation, as of now. There are 46 Chief Commissioners of Income Tax in India and there are 14 DGIT (Investigation). It may be true that for historical reasons, the applicants who are attached to the DGIT Delhi are under the control of the DGIT Delhi and their cadre controlling authority is not the CCIT. But it had been a situation, existing for decades. Especially, in the matter of recruitment and promotions, they are governed by a separate set of rules, and it is not as if the applicants were unaware of the position. Nor was it a later introduction during their career. They cannot disown the recruitment rules, which is to be treated as the foundation of their existence. Later on, when it is seen that they have not as much promotional avenues as some of their counterparts really no cause of action exists, as it cannot amount to discrimination. The recommendation of the Anomaly Committee had been decided to be accepted in part. It is conceded that of course the Committee at one time had indicated that there was no justifiable grounds to retain DGIT (Investigation), New Delhi as an attached office of the CCIT. But even at that time the committee had found that necessarily they should have a cadre restructuring vis-`-vis the other Directorates. The Department was expected to have a holistic view in the situation, and in view of the directives issued by the Government, structure of the Income Tax Department as such is proposed to be streamlined on an all India Basis. Therefore, an exercise solely for satisfying the demands of the applicants could not have been possible to be entertained albeit the Anomaly Committee report and the orders of the Tribunal.
13. Mr. Uppal submits that there were no positive directions of the Tribunal while disposing of the earlier application for implementing the anomaly committee report as canvassed by the applicants here. Since the parties had adopted diametrically opposite stand, on our own, we had examined the rival contentions. It is clear that apart from disposing of the application, without going to the merits of the contentions, there was no positive directions to the manner in which consequential orders were to be passed. Of course, if it was decided to implement, such follow up steps had to be carried out also within the period of eight months. As could be noticed from paragraph 9, free hand had been given to the respondents to come to any just decision, and it is significant that rights of the applicants were preserved in case recommendations or decisions ultimately did not come to their expectation or satisfaction.
14. The minutes of the meetings, as also the letter issued by the Director General of Income Tax letter dated 22.08.2008 show that all aspects and the issues generally pertaining to the officers working in the Income Tax Department at all India level, and as a whole are under active consideration. There is proposal for merger of individual small cadres of various directorates into larger unified cadres. This proposal evidently will generate great repercussions. The recruitment rules for the unified cadres require to be formulated and this is a time consuming process. We cannot but note that a large-scale exercise is definitely in progress.
15. The Administration is complex and the Tribunal may not be justified in confining to examine one of the factors, only for the reason that there might be inequalities. Inequalities by themselves may not justify the Tribunal to straightway come with prescription. As referred to earlier, the Supreme Court had in P.C. Joshi (cited supra) adverted to the general nature of interference expected of courts in mattes of policy decisions taken by the Government. May be some of the applicants, because of their age factor will not become eligible for ultimate benefits, likely to arise because of restructuring or and consequential opening of opportunities. But we have to bear in mind the larger interest of the establishment, is not the casualty. When it is possible to find that the issue as a whole pertaining to the Department are discussed and finalized, it will be a disservice to insist that the applicants claims are to be separately chalked out and decided in advance. Ultimately that may not even contribute to their better interest. In the circumstances, we find no good grounds to interfere. O.A. is dismissed. MA 251/2009 also stands disposed of as of no consequence. No order as to costs.
(N.D. Dayal) (M Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice Chairman (J)
`SRD