Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

41. The material placed on record by the respondents, thus, shows that the distinction between Group-A and Group-B Officers has been in existence from the very beginning. The distinction has been maintained statutorily with distinct powers and jurisdiction, hierarchical position and eligibil- ity qualifications. The sources of their appointment and the authorities vested with the power to appoint them have also been different. The distinction between the two further has been made on the basis of the class of work and the respon- sibility entrusted to each. The work which is of more than a routine nature and which involves a detailed investigation either on account of the class of the assessees or of the complexities of the returns filed, is entrusted to the Officers belonging to Group-A (now Assistant Commissioners) while the assessment work of a summary or routine nature or of the assessees filing routine returns or returns involving simple transactions is entrusted to Officers belonging to Group-B (now ITOs). Although, therefore, apparently the outfit of the function and its procedural part is the same, in practice the assessments differ from assessees to asses- sees, summoning different degrees of knowledge, application of mind, resourcefulness, acumen and taken to scrutinize them. Hence, merely because sometimes, on account of the exigencies of work the Officers belonging to Group-B were entrusted with the work of the Officers of Group-A, it cannot be claimed that the two posts are of an equal rank. The handling of the higher category of work may entitle an Officer of the lower rank to emoluments of the higher post. But that cannot obliterate the distinction between the two posts. To accept the plea of-the petitioners to equate the two posts or to merge them on that account, is to negate the whole statutory scheme and also to ignore the fact that the Group-B post (i.e., the present post of the ITO) is an intermediate post between that of the Income Tax Inspector and the Group-A post (i.e, the present post of Assistant Commissioner) which is a promotional post for Officers belonging to Group-B. The Group-A post is further a selec- tion post and the promotee has to satisfy certain qualifica- tions to be eligible for being considered for the said post. The two posts, therefore, always belonged to two different cadres carrying different scales of pay and other service conditions. Thus, this is not a case of the two posts being equal in status or of belonging to the same class. The distinction between the two is ordained by the Statute and is necessary for its proper implementation. By the very nature of the operation involved, the administra- tion has to have the power to classify the work and to appoint personnel with different skill and talent to execute the different types of work. The legislature being mindful of this need has deliberately created the two classes of officers as is evident from the provisions of Section 117 even prior to its present amendment. Even after the amend- ment the said distinction has been maintained. The fact that this distinction has all along been real and not nominal is clear from the difference in the power and jurisdiction statutorily vested in the two classes of Officers. Hence, the intention of the legislature to have the two classes of Officers to discharge different types of work is manifest and in practice the distinction has always been maintained. It is only when the exigencies of the work required that some officers belonging to Group-B were promoted on ad-hoc basis to the posts of Group-A officers. Such exigencies occur in every organisation, and to cope up with them the authorities have to improvise. That, however, cannot equate the two unequal posts.