Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Suni A Kumar vs Revenue Cbdt on 27 June, 2025
1 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
1. Original Application No.200/184/2022
2. Original Application No.200/246/2022
3. Original Application No.200/829/2024
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 27th day of June, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.200/184/2022
1. Prashant Kumar Pandey, S/o. Late Shri P.J. Prasad, aged about 42
years, presently working as Inspector, Income Tax Department,
Raipur (C.G.); R/o Quarter No.A-1, Type-3 Income Tax Colony,
Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.)-492001.
2. Manoj Kumar, S/o. Late Shri Tanik Prashad, aged about 40 years,
presently working as Inspector, Income Tax Department, Indore
(M.P.); R/o. B-4, Nalanda Season of Joy, Indore (M.P.)-452016.
3. Santosh Kumar, S/o. Shri Malik Jha, aged about 40 years,
presently working as Inspector, Income Tax Department, Indore
(M.P.); R/o. G-20, Empire Residency Piplihana Indore (M.P.)-
452016.
4. Preetam Kumar, S/o. Shri Modanand Jha, aged about 42 years,
presently working as Inspector, Income Tax Department, Indore
(M.P.); R/o. S-32, Nalanda Season of Joy Indore, (Μ.Ρ.)-452016.
-Applicants
(By Advocate - Shri Manoj Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms.
Shrunkhla Darekar)
Versus
Page 1 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01
10:53:07
MISHRA +05'30'
2 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Through its Chairman, Department
of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P. and C.G.,
Aaykar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.)-
462001.
4. Nitesh Tiwari, Inspector, Income Tax Department, Bhopal (M.P.).
5. Devkinandan Malviya, Inspector, Income (Μ.Ρ.). Tax Department,
Bhopal.
6. Sarvagya Meena, Inspector, Income Tax Department, Indore
(M.Ρ.).
7. Puneet Sahgal, Inspector, Income Tax Department, Gwalior
(M.P.).
8. Tuman Chand, Inspector, Income Tax Department, Dhamtari
under Raipur Commissionerate, Raipur (C.G.).
Respondent No.4 to 8 through Respondent No.3 Principal Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P. and C.G. Aaykar Bhawan, 48,
Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) - 462001.
- Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri Gopi Chourasia for official respondents and
Shri Vijay Tripathi for private respondent No.7)
2. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.200/246/2022
1. Kamal Kishore Singh, S/o. Shri Ratnesh Kumar Singh, aged about
46 years, Occupation:-Income Tax Officer at Indore, R/o. U-201,
Shalimar Palms, Bicholi Mardana, Indore (M.P.)-452016.
2. Rajesh Kumar Katare, S/o. Shri K.P.Katare, aged about 41 years,
Occupation: Income Tax Officer at Gwalior, R/o. D-702, Mix
Tower, City, D.B. Sachin Tendulkar Marg, Gwalior (M.P.)-474011.
Page 2 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01
10:53:07
MISHRA +05'30'
3 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024
3. Mohammed Irfan, S/o. Shri Yusuf Mohammed, aged about 37
years, Occupation: Income Tax Officer at Bhopal, R/o. A-62,
Vardhaman Green Park, Ashoka Garden, Bhopal (M.P.)-462023.
4. Dilip Kumar Singh, S/o. Shri R. M. Singh, aged about 41 years,
Occupation: Income Tax Officer at Rewa, R/o. H. No. 11/348, Indira
Nagar, Rewa (M.P.).
5. Praveen Kumar Batri, S/o. Shri D. C. Batri, aged about 40 years,
Occupation: Income Tax Officer at Chhindwara, R/o. Bindra Colony,
Narsinghpur Road, Chhindwara (M.P.).
6. Pramod Kumar, S/o. Shri Ram Naresh Yadav, aged about 39
years, Occupation : Income Tax Officer at Bhopal, R/o Flat No.83,
Crysstal Ideal City, Awadhpuri, Bhopal (M.P.) - 462001.
7. Saurabh Shrivastava, S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava, aged
about 43 years, Occupation : Income Tax Officer at Gwalior, R/o D-
805, Mix Tower, D.B. City, Sachiin Tendulkar Marg, Gwalior (M.P.)
- 474011.
8. Raghvendra Patel, S/o Shri Bhola Prasad Patel, aged about 42
years, Occupation : Income Tax Officer at Bhopal, R/o H.No.286,
Crystal Ideal City, Phase-II, Awadhpuri, Bhopal (M.P.) - 462001.
-Applicants
(By Advocate - Shri Manoj Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms.
Shrunkhla Darekar)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Through its Chairman, Department
of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P. and C.G.,
Aaykar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.)-
462001.
Page 3 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01
10:53:07
MISHRA +05'30'
4 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024
- Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri Gopi Chourasia for official respondents and
Shri Akash Choudhury for interveners)
3. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.200/829/2024
1. Suni A. Kumar, W/o Shri Anil Kumar, aged about 55 years,
Occupation Income Tax Officer, R/o Duplex No.18, Anchanl Vihar,
Katanga, Jabalpur (M.P.) 482001.
2. Binu J. Kumar, W/o G. Jai Kumar, Aged About 51 years,
Occupation Income Tax Officer, R/o Street No. 13, Pragati Nahar,
Rishali, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.).491001.
3. Jiten Kumar Sahoo, S/o Late Shri Baudeb Sahoo, Aged About 53
years, Occupation Income Tax Officer, R/o C-602 Sumit City of
Dreams, Kachnar, Raipur (C.G.).492001.
4. Diwaker Tiwari, Aged About 58 years, Occupation Income Tax
Officer, R/o 791-A. Kailash Vihar, City Centre, Gwalior
(M.P.).474001.
5. P. S. Sagar, S/o Shri Hari Charan Lal Sagar, Aged About 56 years,
Occupation Income Tax Officer, R/o Flat No. I 805, Sun Valley
Township, Near New Collectorate, Gwalior (M.P.).474001.
6. Surendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Shri Kishan Singh Yadav, Aged
About 56years, Occupation Income Tax Officer, R/o D-96,
Harishankar Puram Colony, Gwalior (M.P.)474001.
7. Vinod Marar, S/o Late Shri P.V.P. Marar, Aged About 56 years,
Occupation Income Tax Officer, R/o Plot No. 3, Street No.1, Maitry
Kunj Rishali Bhilai (C.G.).490001.
8. Jayashree Chouhan, W/o Shri Ashish Chouhan, Aged About 56
years, Occupation Tax Recovery Officer (Asstt. -1 Indore), R/o 173,
Pink City, Ring Road, Indore (M.P.) 452001.
Page 4 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01
10:53:07
MISHRA +05'30'
5 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024
9. S. S. Murthy, 10. S/o Late Shri S. N. Murthy, Aged About 58
years, Occupation Income Tax Officer, R/o 453-A, Tulsi Nagar,
Nipania, Near Bombay Hospital, Indore (M.P.) 452016.
10. Gyaneshwar Mishra, S/o Shri Akula Mishra, Aged About 58
years, Occupation Income Tax Officer, R/o House No.35, Om
Garden, Near Parijat Colony, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001.
-Applicants
(By Advocate - Shri Akash Choudhury)
Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001.
2. Central Board of Director Taxes, through its Chairman, Ministry
of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-
110001.
3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh
and Chhattisgarh, Aaykar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad
Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 462001.
4. Shri Kamal Kishore Singh, Income-tax Officer (AU)-1(4)(2),
Bilaspur stationed at Indore, Aayakar Bhawan, White Church Road,
Indore (M.P.). 4520168.
5. Shri Yatish Kale, Income-tax Officer-5(1), Aayakar Bhawan,
White Church Road, Indore (M.P.).452016.
6. Shri Arun Kumar Sharma, Income Tax Officer (TDS), Aayakar
Bhawan, Bharatpuri Road; Ujjain (M.P.). 4560034.
7. Shri Sudhir Sharma, Income-tax Officer (TDS)-2, Aayakar
Bhawan, White Church Road, Indore (M.P.).452016.
8. Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, Income-tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan,
Gwalior (M.P.). 474001.
Page 5 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01
10:53:07
MISHRA +05'30'
6 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024
9. Shri Deepak Kumar, Income-tax Officer (Hgrs.), O/o. Pr.
Commissioner of Income-tax (AU)-1, Aayakar Bhawan,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.). 462001.
10. Mrs. Smrita Gupta, Income-tax Officer (AU)-1(4)(3), Bhopal
stationed at Indore, Aayakar Bhawan, White Church Road, Indore
(M.P.) 452016.
11. Shri Dileep Kumar Singh, Income-tax Officer (AU)-1(1)(2),
Jabalpur stationed at Rewa, Aayakar Bhawan, Rewa (M.P.).486001.
12. Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, Income-tax Officer -3(1), Aayakar
Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). 492001.
13. Mrs. Hemlata Jain, Retd. ITO. Aayakar Bhawan Civil Lines
Raipur (C.G.) 492001.
14. Shri Anjani Kumar Singh, Income-tax Officer (TDS), Vyappar
Vihar Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001.
15. Shri Ramashankar Prasad, Income Tax Officer -1(3)(6), Bilaspur
stationed at Gwalior, Aayakar Bhawan, Gwalior (M.P.) - 474001.
16. Shri Ashutosh Chatterjee, Income-tax Officer (CAT & HC
Matters), O/o Pr. CIT-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Napier Town, Jabalpur
(M.P.) 482001.
17. Shri Praveen Kumar Batri, Income Tax Officer, Ekta Colony,
Bara Patthar, Seoni (M.P.) 480661.
18. Shri Roop Narayan Patel, Income-tax Officer-2(1), Aayakar
Bhawan, Bharatpuri Road, Ujjain (M.P.) 456003.
19. Shri Prem Kumar, ITO (Investigation), CBD Complex, Sector
21, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 492001.
20. Shri Irfan Mohd., Income Tax Officer, Toria Mohalla,
Chhattarpur (M.P.) 471001.
21. Shri Rajesh Katare, Tax Recovery Officer (Assmt.) -1, Ayakar
Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 462001.
Page 6 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01
10:53:07
MISHRA +05'30'
7 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024
- Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri Gopi Chourasia for official respondents and
Shri Manoj Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Shrunkhla
Darekar for private respondents)
(Date of reserving the order:- 24.03.2025)
COMMON ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM;
These three Original Applicants have been filed by two sets of employees of the Income Tax Department, who are direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors and promotee Income Tax Inspectors subsequently promoted as Income Tax Officers. The issue in these Original Applications is regarding inter se seniority between the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors and the promotee Income Tax Inspectors. Since all these three Original Applications were heard analogously, we propose to decide these OAs by way of a common order.
2. The applicants in Original Applications Nos.200/184/2022 and 200/246/2022 are challenging the order dated 31.01.2022 (Annexure A-1) regarding revision of seniority lists in the grade of Income Tax Inspector and Tax Assistant taking recourse to the DoP&T OM dated 13.08.2021 and CBDT letter dated 26.10.2021, whereas the applicants in OA 200/829/2024 are seeking quashment Page 7 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 8 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 of draft seniority list circulated on 11.07.2024 (Annexure A-7) to the extent it grants seniority to the private respondents. For the sake of convenience brief facts of these three OAs are as follows:
3. The applicants in OA 200/184/2022 were initially appointed as Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department, M.P. and C.G. Region after clearing the Staff Selection Commission (SCC) Combined Graduate Level Examination. Later on, all the applicants were promoted to the post of Senior Tax Assistants. They further passed the departmental examination and got promoted as Inspectors, Income Tax for the Vacancy Year 2013-14. A draft gradation list of Inspectors of Income Tax was prepared on 01.12.2015 (Annexure A-5) in ratio for 2:1 of promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits for the Vacancy year 2013-14 and Recruitment Year 2013-14. After receiving objections from all concerned, the respondent No.3 finalized the seniority list on 14.01.2016 (Annexure A-6). This seniority list was maintained up to 2020.
3.1 On 27.05.2019 (Annexure A-8), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued modified instructions for implementation of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others vs. N.R. Parmar & others, (2012) 13 SCC 340 with Page 8 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30'
9 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 prospective effect stating that the earlier instructions had been wrongly issued and contrary to the OM dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure A-4) issued by the DoP&T. Meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & others vs. Ningam Siro & others, (2020) 5 SCC 689, overruled the judgment of N.R. Parmar (supra). However, it was made clear in the said decision that the inter se seniority already finalized on N.R. Parmar (supra) will not be affected and the same is protected. It was further made clear that this decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant rules. 3.2 Consequently, the DoP&T vide Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure A-10) issued instructions for implementation of the judgment with prospective effect and withdrawal of the earlier OM dated 04.03.2014, which was based on N.R. Parmar's judgment. Subsequently, the CBDT issued instructions dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure A-12) in the light of the OM dated 13.08.2021. However, Paras 5(iii) and 5(iv) provide favour to the direct recruit Inspectors. The applicants say that by virtue of the said OM dated 26.10.2021, the seniority of the applicants finalized in the year 2016 (Annexure A-6) has been sought to be reviewed, Page 9 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 10 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 which is in violation of the judgment in K. Meghachandra (supra). Vide the impugned letter dated 31.01.2022 (Annexure A-1), a draft seniority/gradation list of Inspectors has been issued, wherein the seniority of the applicants has been changed and they have been relegated to a much lower position. As per this draft seniority list, the Recruitment Year of applicants has been changed from the year 2013-14 to 2014-15 and the direct recruit Inspectors, who were recruited in the year 2015-16 have been placed above the promotee Inspectors.
4. The applicants in OA 200/246/2022 joined as Inspectors in the Financial Year 2008-09 for the Vacancy Year between 2000-01 to 2005-06, which were reported in the Recruitment Year 2006-07. The seniority of the applicants was fixed on the basis of the OM dated 03.03.2008, i.e. from the date of appointment. But, later on, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra) had quashed the OM dated 03.03.2008 and directed to fix the seniority of all the Income Tax Inspectors on the basis of OM dated 03.07.1986, i.e. Recruitment Year in which vacancies were reported to the recruiting agency. Thereafter, the DoP&T issued an OM dated 04.03.2014 for giving effect to the directions contained in Page 10 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 11 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 N.R. Parmar (supra). Para 5(i) of OM dated 04.03.2014 provides that seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of term 'availability' as contained in DoP&T OM dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986 may not be reopened. 4.1 Since the Department had not implemented the judgment of N.R. Parmar (supra), the applicants Nos.1, 4, 7 & 8 approached this Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No.531 of 2013. During pendency of the O.A, this Tribunal allowed the respondent No.3 to convene the DPC to the grade of Income Tax Officer on the basis of then existing seniority list, subject to final outcome of the Original Application. The applicants then approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P. No.9491/2013 and while remitting the matter back to the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 03.08.2013 (Annexure A-4) directed the respondents to comply the dictum in N.R. Parmar (supra). Meanwhile, all the applicants got promoted to the post of Income Tax Officer on the basis of seniority list drawn as per OM dated 03.03.2008. On 17.11.2014, the Department re-casted the seniority of the Income Tax Inspectors on the basis of the judgment of N.R. Parmar (supra) in accordance with OM dated 04.03.2014. Subsequently, the Page 11 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 12 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 Original Application No.531/2013 preferred by the applicants was disposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2014 directing the respondents to convene review DPC on the basis of seniority list of Inspectors dated 17.11.2014.
4.2 On 16.12.2014, a review DPC was convened by the Department on the basis of the re-casted seniority list dated 17.11.2014 and after the review DPC dated 16.12.2014, the date of promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer of the applicants has been antedated. The final re-casted seniority list of Income Tax Inspectors was circulated vide letter dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure A-
6).
4.3 Subsequently, after a lapse of almost five years, the CBDT issued a letter dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure A-8), wherein an advisory has been issued to all the Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax for implementation of the judgment of N.R. Parmar (supra) prospectively citing the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ms. Veena Kothawale vs. Union of India [WP (C) No.2087 of 2016], wherein the representations have been called from all the concerned and aggrieved employee/officers. Meanwhile, on 19.11.2019, the Page 12 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 13 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced the judgment in the case of K. Meghachandra (supra). After the pronouncement in K. Meghachandra (supra), the advisory dated 27.05.2019 has lost its relevance, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has protected seniority already fixed on the basis of N.R. Parmar (supra). 4.4 The seniority of the applicants was fixed on the basis of OM dated 04.03.2014 read with CBDT letter dated 06.06.2014. The DoP&T OM dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure A-12) further clarifies that the judgment in K. Meghachandra (supra) is prospective, and therefore, cases of inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, already decided in terms of OM dated 04.03.2014 shall not be disturbed.
4.5 The CBDT vide letter dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure A-13) directed to implement DoP&T OM dated 13.08.2021 but certain paras of this letter are contrary to OM dated 13.08.2021. The DoP&T OM dated 13.08.2021 withdraws the OM dated 04.03.2014 prospectively, i.e. w.e.f.19.11.2019. Therefore, any explanation to DoP&T OM dated 04.03.2014/CBDT letter dated 06.06.2014 cannot be withdrawn from back date. Vide the draft seniority list circulated on 31.01.2022 (Annexure A-1), the applicants have been Page 13 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 14 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 relegated to much lower position as Inspectors, which would have consequential impact on their seniority as Income Tax Officers.
5. The applicants in OA No.200/829/2024 are promotee Income Tax Inspectors and presently holding the post of Income Tax Officers. They place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Veena Kothawale (supra), which has considered the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) and held that the said judgment shall be implemented prospectively, i.e. w.e.f.27.11.2012. Subsequently, the order passed in the case of Veena Kothawale (supra) has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diwakar Singh vs. Union of India [SLP(C) No(s).11905- 11906/2018 dated 16.05.2018]. Therefore, the respondents ought to have revisited the seniority list of the applicants on the post of Inspectors till the cut-off date i.e. 27.11.2012. The applicants, in the garb of the present Original Application, are challenging the draft seniority list circulated on 11.07.2024 (Annexure A-7) of Income Tax Officers from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2013.
6. We find that somewhat similar reply in all three Original Applications has been filed by the respondents. The respondents have stated that in pursuance to the judgment of Hon'ble High Page 14 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 15 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 Court of Delhi in Veena Kothavale (supra), it has been decided to implement the judgment of N.R. Parmar (supra) prospectively w.e.f.27.11.2012. Further, the retrospective implementation w.e.f. 1986 has unsettled the settled seniority list and has also caused a cascading effect on seniority and promotions in many cadres over the subsequent years. The protection granted in the case of K. Meghachandra (supra) is only for the period 27.11.2012 to 18.11.2019. This is supported by the fact mentioned in Para 3 of the CBDT letter dated 27.05.2019. The DoP&T OM dated 04.03.2014 clearly stipulates prospective implementation, i.e. w.e.f.27.11.2012. Therefore, refixation has to be done w.e.f.27.11.2012. In reply to OA No.200/829/2024, the respondents have stated that the seniority list in respect of the applicants has already been finalized in the year 2016 and the same has not been challenged by the applicants therein.
7. We have considered the matter and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 in OA 200/184/2022 has contended that all the applicants in the OA are junior to respondent Page 15 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 16 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 No.7. Therefore, there was no occasion to implead the respondent No.7 as a party.
9. The arguments of other counsels are on the lines to their written pleadings. While the learned counsel for the applicants in OA 200/829/2024 has emphasized that the seniority requires to be revisited in line with the judgment in the case of Veena Kothawale (supra), learned counsel for the applicants in OA 200/246/2022 have contended that the judgment in Veena Kothavale (supra) is of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the judgment in K. Meghachandra (supra) protects the seniority fixed on the basis of N.R. Parmar (supra). The counsel has cited various case laws including the orders passed by the different Benches of this Tribunal.
10. It is to be noted that prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R. Parmar (supra), the law was that a person is not entitled to claim seniority from a date when he was not borne in the service. The issue was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R. Parmar's case and 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 considered. The Recruitment Year was to be the year in which Page 16 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 17 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 recruitment process by either of the modes of recruitment for a particular vacancy year is initiated. 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 Years. Thereafter, in K. Meghachandra (supra), a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court overruled 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 determining the 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 light of N.R. Parmar's case (supra) and the decision would apply prospectively.
11. In the case of Veena Kohawale (supra), the Hon'ble High Court Delhi has interpreted the applicability of the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) and has observed as under:
11. After the Petitioner had withdrawn her O.A. on 28.07.2010 -
thereby giving up her claim against the direct recruitment quota, Respondent No.5, who was on the reserve panel was offered the post of DLC and, accordingly, he joined as a direct recruit DLC on 07.10.2010. Thus, the admitted position was that the Petitioner had joined as DLC on 25.05.2009 as a promotee against the promotion quota, while Respondent No.5 joined the post of DLC on 07.10.2010 as a direct recruit. Consequently, when the Respondents No. 1 to 4 issued the Seniority Lists of DLCs on 25.10.2010, 15.09.2011 and lastly on 07.03.2014, the Petitioner, in view of her having joined the post of DLC much earlier than Respondent No.5, Page 17 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 18 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 was shown as senior to Respondent No.5. It is also an undisputed position that no objection of any kind was raised by Respondent No.5 to any of the aforesaid three Seniority Lists.
xxx xxx xxx
35. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. In our view, two interconnected issues arise for consideration in the Petition. The first is: Whether the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees fixed prior to 27.11.2012 i.e. the date of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra), can be reopened despite the same having attained finality by following the prescribed process. The second related issue is: Whether, in view of the admitted fact that no challenge had been raised by the Respondent No.5 to any of the three Seniority List issued in 27.10.2010, 15.09.2011 and 07.03.2014 (which was issued after the decision of the Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra), were the Respondents No.1 to 4 justified in changing the already settled inter se seniority of the parties, by merely stating that the revised Seniority List was prepared in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra).
xxx xxx xxx
37. The general principles for determination of seniority in the Central Services, annexed to this OM, inter alia, provided under Principle No.6 the principle to be followed for fixation of "Relative seniority of Direct Recruits and Promotees". An explanatory memorandum to the general principles was also issued.
xxx xxx xxx
3. This matter, which was also discussed in the National Council has been engaging the attention of the Government for quite some time and it has been decided that in future, while the principle of rotation of quotas will still be followed for determining the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, the present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years, thereby giving them unitended seniority over promotees who are already in position, would be dispensed with. Thus, if adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available, the promotees will be benched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it is possible to Page 18 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 19 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 determine seniority on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available. The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies would, however, be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where necessary) for taking action for direct recruitment for the total number according to the usual practice. Thereafter, in that year while seniority will be determined between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for that year, the additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed en-bloc below the last promotee (or direct recruit as the case may be) in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for that year. The same principle holds good in determining seniority in the event of carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent years.
xxx xxx xxx
39. The DOP&T issued the O.M. dated 03.07.1986, which was merely a consolidating order and did not say anything new or different from what was stated in the O.M.s dated 22.12.1959 and 07.02.1986.
xxx xxx xxx
42. Pertinently, each of the OMs aforesaid, except the O.M. dated 03.07.1986 - which was only a consolidating O.M. and said nothing new or different from the earlier ones, provided that the said O.M.s shall not affect settled seniority positions. We have consciously highlighted the relevant paragraphs in the said O.M.s, which state so.
xxx xxx xxx
45. The OM dated 04.03.2014, pertinently, also seeks to make the principle laid down in the said OM effective from 27.11.2012, i.e. the date on which the Supreme Court decided N.R. Parmar (supra). It also provided that "The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term availability as contained in DOP&T OM dated 07.02.1986/ 03/07/1986 may not be re-opened". Thus, the cases of seniority already settled were not to be re-opened.
xxx xxx xxx
50. Then how should we understand the observations made by the Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) qua the O.M. dated Page 19 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 20 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 03.03.2008? According to the respondents, the observations made by the Supreme Court- as extracted above, tantamount to complete effacement and nullification of the O.M. dated 03.03.2008 ab initio. They state that the law declared by the Supreme Court is a declaration of the law as it has always been, and is not only prospective, unless specifically so stated by the Supreme Court. At this stage, we may remind ourselves of the well-settled principle that decisions of Courts are not to be read as Statutes. In Union of India & Others Vs. Dhanwanti Devi & Others, (1996) 6 SCC 44, while dealing with the issue as to whether the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Hari Krishan Khosla, (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 149, constitutes a binding precedent or not, the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed in paragraph 10 that:
"10. ... ... ... No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law cannot afford to be static and therefore, Judges are to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents."
xxx xxx xxx
59. As we have already observed, the administrative wisdom has always been to preserve the settled seniority whenever there has been a change in the rule position/ applicable principle, and the changed rule/ principle that affects seniority is invariably made prospective in its operation. This administrative wisdom is in consonance with the well-settled legal principle that settled seniority should not be allowed to be unsettled. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) is silent on the aforesaid aspect, in our considered view, the reasonable manner of application of the said decision - which would advance the cause of justice, would be to treat the OM dated 03.03.2008 as nullified/ quashed from and on the date of the said decision, i.e. 27.11.2012, and to preserve the settled seniority position drawn up by application of the said OM dated 03.03.2008 till the date of the decision in N.R. Parmar (supra).
xxx xxx xxx
63. Pertinently, even though the decision in N.R. Parmar (supra) does not state that the said decision would be applicable only from the date on which it was rendered, the OM dated 04.03.2014 states that "principles for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees" which are contained in the OMs dated 07.02.1986 / 03.07.1986, "would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date of the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7514- Page 20 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 21 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar Vs. UOI & Others". Thus, even as per the OM dated 04.03.2014, the decision in N.R. Parmar (supra) was sought to be given effect to from the date of the said decision, i.e. 27.11.2012. The consequence of the application of the OM dated 04.03.2014, in our view, is that the seniority positions as settled up to the date of decision of N.R. Parmar (supra), were treated as final.
xxx xxx xxx
67. In the light of the O.M. dated 03.03.2008, there was no purpose for the petitioner to continue to seek her claim against the direct recruitment vacancy for the year 2007 as, even if she had eventually got the said post, it would not have made her seniority position any better in view of the then prevailing principle/ rule for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees. Thus, the decision taken by the petitioner to forego her claim in respect of the direct recruitment vacancy of the year 2007 cannot be used against her.
xxx xxx xxx
70. The principle, that the law declared by the Supreme Court always has retrospective effect, and is applicable to all cases - irrespective of the stage of their pendency (because it is assumed that what is declared by the Supreme Court was, in fact, the law from the very inception), would have to be harmonized with the equally well-established principle that settled seniority in a service, should not be allowed to be unsettled. In the present case, the inter se seniority of the parties was not at all under challenge right from 2010. No dispute relating to inter se seniority was pending when the decision in N.R. Parmar (supra) was rendered. As there was no pending challenge to the Seniority List, in our view the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra), could not be made applicable to the present case. As we have already observed, the O.M. dated 04.03.2014, in fact, shows that the application of the decision in N.R. Parmar (supra) was made applicable prospectively by the government. We have considered the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents laying down the concept of retrospective overruling by courts. That proposition is not disputed by any of the parties, and hence we are not making any reference to the same. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the said principle does not come to the aid of respondent No.5."Page 21 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 22 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024
12. Having noted the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Veena Kothavale (supra), wherein it was held that N.R. Parmar (supra) is to be implemented prospectively and subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.11905- 11906/2018, CBDT realized that the advisories issued in the year 2014 to 2015 to implement the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 subsequent to judgment in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra) with retrospective effect from the year 1986 not only unsettled the seniority position of the officers in their respective grades, but also created an administrative hardship. Hence, the CBDT issued a letter dated 27.05.2019 withdrawing the said advisories. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Meghachandra (supra) having overruled the decision in N.R. Parmar (supra) case has held that that the K. Meghanchandra (supra) will apply prospectively, CBDT then issued instructions to all the Regions to take necessary action vide letter dated 26.10.2021.
13. We find that an identical issue relating to the dispute between promotees and direct appointees over inter-se seniority in the grade of Inspectors in the Income Tax Department in respect Gujarat region fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Page 22 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 23 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 Hariharan & Others vs. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & others, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.16161/2018. The direct recruits challenged the seniority list dated 13.02.2018 in Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat inter alia seeking relief for setting aside the clarification dated 17.01.2018 with a consequential prayer for restoring the seniority list dated 07.09.2016. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat quashed the seniority list dated 13.02.2018 and restored the seniority list of 07.09.2016 with a clarification that only those direct recruits who were eligible and had qualified in the Recruitment Year 2009-10 shall be interspaced with 53 promotees who were promoted vide DPC dated 29.06.2009. By way of an interim order, the status quo of that date was ordered to be maintained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hariharan (supra). We notice that the law is yet to be settled in respect of the seniority of the direct recruitees and promotees in pursuance to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R. Parmar (supra), as the judgment delivered in K. Meghachandra (supra), reversing the findings in N.R. Parmar (supra), has been referred to a larger Bench of five Hon'ble Judges who are yet to decide the following issues framed in the case of Hariharan (supra):
Page 23 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 24 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 "a. Whether the decision in the case of K. Meghanchandra 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 Coutindo and the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy?
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 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?"
14. The impugned order in Original Application No.200/246/2022 (Annexure A-1) on the subject of revision of seniority lists in the grade of Income Tax Inspector and Tax Assistants refers to the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021. It is the stand of the respondents that the Office Memorandum dated 04.03.2014 provides for prospective implementation of the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) and this has been reiterated in the judgment of Veena Kothawale (supra). However, the fact of the matter remains that Para 40 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra (supra) protects the cases where the seniority had already been decided in terms of OM dated 04.03.2014 with a further stipulation that the seniority list already drawn on the basis of N.R. Parmar (supra) prior to 19.11.2019 (date of judgment) need not be unsettled. Therefore, whatever has been done in Page 24 of 26 ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 25 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 pursuance to the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra), the same cannot be undone till such time this issue is decided by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court. We also take note of the fact that the seniority list qua the applicants vis-à-vis private respondents has already been finalized in the year 2016 and the applicants in OA No.200/829/2024 did not object to the same till the filing of the Original Application in the year 2024. Hence, their challenge through this O.A filed in 2024 regarding the draft inter se seniority list of Income Tax Officers from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2013 issued vide Office Memorandum dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure A-7) renders their claim as time bar. We, however, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 (Annexure A-1), which is not in consonance with the current position of law and direct the respondents not to change the seniority of the applicants/direct recruite officers finalized in pursuance to the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra). The seniority of the applicants in OA No.200/184/2022, who were promoted as Income Tax Inspectors for the Vacancy Year 2013-2014 also need not to be disturbed.
15. In the result, the applicants in OA Nos.200/184/2022 & 200/246/2022 succeed and their Original Applications are allowed.Page 25 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01 10:53:07 MISHRA +05'30' 26 OA 200/184/2022, 200/246/2022 & 200/829/2024 The Original Application No.200/829/2024 is dismissed in view of the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am
Page 26 of 26
ANUPAM2025.07.01
10:53:07
MISHRA +05'30'