Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On 08.11.2011, when the case came up, MA No.2971/2011 was allowed in following order:

Present : Shri Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh.
Kritman Singh and Sh. T. Singhdev counsel for applicant. Sh. U. Srivastava and Sh. A. K. Behera counsel for respondents.
Mr. A. K. Behera has filed MA No.2971/2011 seeking impleadment of Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association and Mr. Satpal Singh as a party respondent. A copy of the same has been given to Mr. Kritman Singh, learned counsel for the applicant to which he has no objection. The same is allowed in terms of prayer made therein. Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association and Mr. Satpal Singh are made as a party respondent. The office will carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties. The original and added respondents may file their reply before the next date of hearing. Let the reply be filed even on the date fixed in the court but a copy of the same must be given to the counsel for applicant two days in advance who may respond to the same by filing rejoinder even on the date fixed in the court itself. It is made clear no further adjournment shall be given.
List on 29.11.2011. During the hearing on 29.11.2011, it was considered necessary that DOP&T should file the reply affidavit. But, on subsequent dates (15.12.2011 and 04.01.2010) as the DOPT was found not properly represented, we issued the following directions on 04.01.2012:
Present : Sh. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh.
Kritiman Singh and Sh. T. Singhdev counsel for applicant.
Sh. A. K. Behera and Sh. Amit Anand counsel for respondents.
Order dated 15.12.2011 reads as follows:-

4. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kirtiman Singh, Shri T. Singhdev, and Shri Zaftab Anwar, learned counsel argued the case on behalf of the applicants. He anchored his principal grounds on the following contentions. (i) The applicants having been appointed prior to the induction of promotee officers to IRS, the relative seniority cannot be changed through backdoor method. He elaborates the same to state that the respondent Department is showing the promotees as Members of IRS from 2001 and 2002 batches whereas they have been inducted in the year 2003 after the appointment of the applicants. The seniority of promotees is, therefore, erroneously shown. In respect of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, he placed his reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Uttranchal Forest Rangers Association (Direct Recruit) and Others versus State of UP and Others [2006-10-SCC-346] and Pawan Pratap Singh versus Reevan Singh [2011-3-SCC-267]. (ii) Some of the promotee officers were designated as DCIT in Senior Scale after completion of merely three years as ACIT as they joined on 05.12.2003. Referring to the IRS Civil List as on 01.01.2007 (Annexure-A4) Shri Maninder Singh submits that as on 01.01.2007 the promotees were shown in the Senior Scale whereas the direct recruits who joined IRS on 01.09.2003 have been granted Senior Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2003. This approach of the Department is termed as invidious discrimination. (iii) In respect of promotion to the JCIT i.e. Junior Administrative Grade (JAG), the qualifying service as per the Rules for the eligibility to be considered is (a) four years of regular service in ACIT and (b) five years of regular service in DCIT. The promotees who joined as ACIT on 05.12.2003 by no stretch of imagination could be considered on 17/18.10.2011 for promotion to the JCIT grade, despite relaxation of one year of regular service. He terms the promotion of the promotee officers to JCIT rank even on ad hoc basis as an arbitrary decision of the Department. (iv) Even the DOP&T while granting one year relaxation for ad hoc promotion has questioned the grant of senior scale to promotee officers when they have not even fulfilled the minimum eligibility condition of 4 years in the Junior Scale i.e. as ACIT. (v) Shri Maninder Singh drew our attention to the Table in the OA to say that the Department has for many years under reported the vacancies for the direct recruits whereas no such under reporting has been resorted to for the promotees. This practice has distorted the rota rule of 1:1 to the disadvantage of the applicants. (v) Though the respondents referred to the minutes of the DPC to say that Panel/Vacancy years for which the Panels were recommended being 2001-02 and 2002-03, Shri Maninder Singh would contend that the order promoting those officers to ACIT for induction to IRS being silent about the vacancy and panel year, the promotee officers could not have been given retrospective promotion which was presumptive on the part of the respondent Department.