Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Ashok Kumar Verma vs Revenue on 13 October, 2022
(OA No.37 /2022)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
O.A.No.37/2022
With
M.A.No.117/2022
Reserved on:27.09.2022
Pronounced on:13.10.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J)
1. Ashok Kumar Verma S/o Shri Nathu Lal aged about 41
R/o Flat No.420, Ashiana Greens, Sikar Road, Jaipur
presently working as ITO (Group-B), O/o CCIT, Jaipur.
Mobile No.9530400432.
2. Indra Bhushan S/o Late Shri Bindeshwar Sah aged
about 49 years R/o G-603 Mahima Paradise Apartment,
Jagatpura, Airport Road, Jaipur presently working as
ITO (Group-B), O/o CCIT, Jaipur. Mobile
No.9530400503.
3. Sunder Lal Prajapati S/o Shri Govind Narain aged about
38 R/o Flat No.301, Eminent Towers, Jaisinghpura,
Jaipur presently working as ITO (Group-B), O/o CCIT,
Jaipur. Mobile No.9530400542. ...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Kapil Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-
110001. Email:[email protected].
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
Email:[email protected].
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner, Department of
Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building Statue
Circle, Janpath, Jaipur-302005.
4. The Department of Personnel and Training through its
Secretary, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, 110001.
Email: secy [email protected].
5. Surjeet Singh Taneja S/o Dr. Ishwar Singh Taneja,
aged about 52 years, R/o Plot No.52, Prem Nagar,
Benar Road, Nandhadi, Jodhpur-342001, presently
working as Income Tax Officer, (IAP-1), Jodhpur
(Rajasthan). ...Respondents.
(By Advocates: Shri Gaurav Jain, Shri Amit Mathur)
(OA No.37 /2022)
(2)
ORDER
Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):
In this OA, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"i) By an appropriate order or direction, the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed not to be disturb the relative seniority of the applicants as decided in the seniority list of the Inspectors published on 15.05.2014;
ii) And the respondents be further directed not to change the status of the applicants which they acquired based on the seniority published on 15.05.2014 in terms that their position in the said seniority as well as subsequent promotion may kindly be maintained and may not be disturbed.
iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be considered Just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant.
iv) The said OA has been filed Jointly, the same may be considered Jointly."
2. The OA is one, in a series of litigations on the issue of inter-se-seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Income Tax Department, which, hopefully, culminated with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Meghachandra Singh vs. Ningam Siro & Ors. [(2020) 5 SCC 689]overruling the decision of the Hon'ble High Court (OA No.37 /2022) (3) in Union of India & Others vs. N.R. Parmar & Others (Civil Appeal No.7414-7515 of 2005). We are, on purpose, not burdening this order with details of various orders/OMs/Seniority lists that are annexed with the OAs/replies/rejoinder, and are limiting referencing to only those that are relevant to arrive at the conclusions reached in this order.
3. The applicants have prayed for quashing the impugned order on ground that it contravenes or misinterprets the DoPT order dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure A/8). The Meghachandra Singh's judgment had protected those whose seniority was settled following the judgment of the NR Parmar (supra). The applicants got the benefit of the judgment of the NR Parmar and were given their correct place in the seniority list published on 15.05.2014 (Annexure A/6). This closed the matter which was raised before Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal (by OA Nos.270, 271, 275 & 293 of 2002). The impugned order, by seeking to revise the seniority list, is an attempt to reopen the issue and is in breach of the protection given in Meghchandra Singh's case (supra) for matters already settled following the case of NR Parmar (supra).
(OA No.37 /2022) (4)
4. An interim relief, for maintaining status quo qua the applicants, was granted by this Tribunal's order dated 07.02.2022.
5. A reply has been filed by the respondents in which they have mostly agreed with the facts mentioned in the OA but have denied the grounds raised for claiming the reliefs prayed. It is stated that the impugned order is in full compliance of the instructions issued by DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021. The seniority list dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure A/6) is not a final seniority list, and thus the matter of inter- se seniority is not finally settled. The impugned order is in full compliance of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the subsequent OMs issued by the department to ensure compliance of those decisions. The revision of seniority list is required following the dicta of all these decisions. The reply lists 18 OAs filed before various Benches of this Tribunal, which were disposed of by a common order (Annexed as Annexure R/1) of the Principal Bench, allowing revision of seniority lists, under similar circumstances. The reply also states that the issue relating to the seniority list (between the applicants, who are direct recruits, and the promotees) is already challenged and is pending before this Tribunal in OA No.370/2017 (Kamal Kishore Kumawat & Others vs. Union of India and Others).
(OA No.37 /2022) (5)
6. A number of persons (representing the promotees) prayed for impleading themselves as private respondents, by filing MA No.111/2022. The MA was allowed vide order dated 29.03.2022.
7. The applicants have filed a detailed rejoinder, reiterating their earlier stand. The rejoinder also informs about further action taken by the respondents, to revise the seniority lists and to conduct DPC, which, the applicants allege, is contemptuous of this Tribunal's interim order and other orders of this Tribunal in previous cases.
8. Since the pleadings are effectively complete, the matter was finally heard, with the consent of the counsels of both the parties, on 27.09.2022. Both the learned counsels argued vehemently in support of their respective pleadings. We appreciate the counsels of both the parties, for keeping their arguments succinct and to the point, and for resisting the temptation to recant the entire history of the matter which has already been a subject matter of adjudication up to the Apex Court.
9. It boils down that the limited issue before us is whether the impugned order (dated 26.10.2021 at Annexure A/1) (OA No.37 /2022) (6) needs to be quashed, on the ground that it violates the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghachandra Singh's case. We are reproducing here the relevant portion of that judgment here:
"39........ However, it is made clear that this decision will not affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar and the same is protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant rules from the date of vacancy/the date of advertisement."
10. The argument of the applicants is that their seniority was already finalized by the list published on 15.05.2014 (Annexure A/6). There has been no further seniority list published after that. The respondents have argued that it was neither the final seniority list nor could it be said to be issued in proper compliance of the N.R. Parmar case (since that judgment should have been applied only prospectively, following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ms.Veena Kothawale vs. Union of India [WP (C) 2087/2016). We have gone through the covering letter forwarding the aforementioned seniority list (Page 39 of the Paper Book). The letter seeks objections/representations against the proposed list, and mentions that in case no objections are received, it will be presumed that the seniority list has been accepted as correct. The seniority list itself mentions that it was prepared in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble (OA No.37 /2022) (7) Supreme Court in N.R.Parmar case. The covering letter would make it appear that it is not the final list, and this would go in favour of the respondents who have claimed the matter is not settled. The heading on the seniority list, proclaiming it to have been prepared in the light of N.R. Parmar case, would apparently shake the claim of the respondents (that it is not so, as the case of N.R.Parmar was to be applied only prospectively). Be it as it may, it is not denied by either party that this seniority list is already challenged before us and that matter is pending decision in OA No.370/2017 (Kamal Kishore Kumawat case). In the present OA, the limited issue is whether this seniority list can be revised, following Meghchandra Singh's case, or not.
11. We have gone through the impugned order. It describes, in detail, the history of this issue, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the OMs issued by the department in this regard. It proposes action in line with these decisions. It specifically mentions, in the last paragraph, that in case of any doubt, the instructions contained in DoP&T's OM dated 13.08.2021 shall prevail. It is reasonable to presume that the respondent Department would obey the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghachandra Singh's case, and follow the directions contained in the OM dated 13.08.2021 (which, incidentally, (OA No.37 /2022) (8) the applicants themselves want to be followed, refer Para 4.11 of the OA). The respondents are to give protection to the applicants, if they deserve it, as per the exception made in the Meghachandra Singh decision. This Tribunal has already, in a number of cases, decided in favour of allowing revision of seniority in similar matters. The applicants have not been able to show that their case is significantly different from them. In this situation, quashing the impugned order, on an unreasonable assumption that the respondents would violate the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, would be, premature.
12. The OA is therefore, not allowed. The interim order dated 07.02.2022 is, consequentially, revoked. It would be open for the applicants to raise issue before an appropriate forum, if the revised list and any action following that, violates any law of this land (which, needless to mention, includes the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghachandra Singh's case). No costs.
13. MA No.117/2022 has been filed by the respondents for deletion of name of Respondent No.1 from the array of respondents is disposed of accordingly.
(OA No.37 /2022)
(9)
(Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma)
Member (J) Member (A)
/kdr/