2017 (4) TMI 1245 - HC - Indian Laws

All India inter-se seniority list of Income Tax Officers - non-compliance of conclusions and directions issued in the case of Union of India Vs. N.R.Parmar (2012 (12) TMI 872 - SUPREME COURT) - Held that - Undisputed fact remains that though 4 years and 4 moths have passed, yet no final, common all India level seniority list of ITOs is prepared. The excuse on the part of the Department about administrative constraints which have come in their way and seeking opinion of the Department of Legal Affairs about the situation which had arisen after decision in the case of Rajiv Mohan 2010 (1) TMI 1242 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD being contrary to the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. N.R.Parmar (supra) and clarification sought in this regard by the Principal CCIT, UP (West), according to us prima facie would not only be misconceived but meritless inasmuch as, the decision rendered in the case of Rajiv Mohan was qua grievance raised by an individual, which had no apparent conflict with the law laid down by Their Lordships in the case of Union of India Vs. N.R.Parmar (supra). Baring vague assertions about delay based on above case in the application for vacating interim relief, no other ground appears. The Department has tried to take shelter under duties to be performed for collection of taxes, a sovereign function, to which we are not unmindful. However, at various stages and forums, grievance of the eligible officers like the petitioner remains unanswered and statements were made before this Court to complete the exercise as early as possible. Even the last affidavit which was filed on 27.01.2017 before this Court in contempt proceedings also, reveals expected time to be taken of not more than 2 months for preparing draft of All India inter-se seniority list of Income Tax Officers by interpolating all the seniority list of ITOs and then to be published on the website of the Department. Such ad hocism on the part of the Income Tax Department in the appointment of important post of ACIT de hors the directions issued in the case of Union of India Vs. N.R.Parmar (supra) and cannot be permitted even on the ground of administrative exigencies unless final seniority list of ITOs based on all India seniority is completed within time bound schedule. Even today, while passing this order, we have asked learned Counsel for the Department to seek instructions and state whether within specific time limit, it is possible for the concerned authority to prepare finally all India list of ITOs. However, she is unable to make any such statement.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-implementation of the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors.
2. Discriminatory treatment in the seniority list of Income Tax Officers (ITOs).
3. Delay in finalizing the All India seniority list of ITOs.
4. Interim relief and its implications on promotions to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT).
5. Administrative constraints cited by the Department.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-implementation of the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors.:
The petitioner’s primary grievance was the non-implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors., which dealt with the determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees based on the "rotation of quota" principles. Despite the Supreme Court's clear directives, the respondents had not finalized the seniority list of ITOs, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

2. Discriminatory treatment in the seniority list of Income Tax Officers (ITOs):
The petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment against similarly situated persons in Gujarat, despite the Supreme Court's order in their favor. This was highlighted in Civil Application No. 6862 of 2016, where the petitioner contended that the seniority list dated 01.09.2015 was contrary to the judgment in Union of India Vs. N.R. Parmar.

3. Delay in finalizing the All India seniority list of ITOs:
Despite the Supreme Court's decision on 27.11.2012, more than four years had passed without finalizing the All India seniority list of ITOs. The Department cited administrative constraints and conflicting judgments as reasons for the delay. However, the Court found these reasons meritless and emphasized the need for a time-bound schedule to finalize the seniority list.

4. Interim relief and its implications on promotions to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT):
The Court had issued an interim relief on 03.03.2017, restraining the respondents from taking further steps to prepare the panel for promotions to ACITs. The respondents sought to vacate this interim relief, citing administrative exigencies and the need to fill over 200 vacant posts. However, the Court found no reason to vacate or modify the interim relief, emphasizing the need to comply with the Supreme Court's directives before proceeding with promotions.

5. Administrative constraints cited by the Department:
The Department argued that administrative constraints and the need for legal clarifications delayed the finalization of the seniority list. The Court, however, found these excuses unconvincing and stressed the importance of adhering to the Supreme Court's judgment. The Court noted that the Department had previously assured the completion of the seniority list within a specific timeframe, which was not honored.

Conclusion:
The Court found the issues raised by the petitioner to be valid and emphasized the need for compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. N.R. Parmar. The Court decided to continue the interim relief and admitted the writ petition, setting a returnable date of 05.05.2017. The Civil Application for vacating interim relief was disposed of accordingly.