2020 (1) TMI 1567 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction to respondents to grant applicants pro-forma/notional promotion to the post of Principal Commissioners of Income Tax and consequential retirement benefits - HELD THAT - The petitioners would try to assert that while the petitioners were still working as Commissioners of Income Tax a Government Order came to be passed on 31.05.2013 wherein a decision which was taken by the 1st respondent-Government is to increase the strength of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax from 116 to 300 thereby taking a decision to increase additional 184 posts. When the said decision was taken the applicants were still in service and they were in consideration zone however meeting of the ACC was not scheduled till 30.01.2015. In fact list of the Officers who were under consideration zone for the panel year 2013-14 was prepared vide office order dated 30.01.2015 in No.18/25/2014-EO(SM.II). The same would indicate the name of all the petitioners and D.B. Manival Raju. In the subsequent proceedings initiated by the petitioners the Tribunal has ignored to look into its own earlier order; also the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal to consider the prayer of D.B. Manival Raju for notional promotion and consequential benefits is ignored while considering the petitioners applications. It clearly discloses that there is no parity in the order passed by the Tribunal while considering the prayer of petitioners which is similar to the prayer of D.B. Manival Raju in earlier application. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 07.02.2018 in O.A.Nos.621-623/2016 is required to be quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application seeking quashing of orders and notional promotion to Principal Commissioners of Income Tax.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their application seeking to quash three orders and grant notional promotion to the post of Principal Commissioners of Income Tax with consequential retirement benefits. The applications were based on a Tribunal order in a similar matter. The petitioners and another individual were serving as Commissioners of Income Tax and were in the consideration zone for promotion to Principal Commissioners when additional posts were created. The petitioners' names were considered for promotion by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) along with the other individual, who later approached the Tribunal for notional promotion. The Tribunal allowed the individual's application, but a different member rejected the petitioners' applications without considering the earlier order.

The petitioners argued that they were in service when the decision to increase posts was made, and the ACC meeting was scheduled later. A list of officers in the consideration zone was prepared in January 2015, including the petitioners and the other individual. The Tribunal had granted notional promotion to the other individual based on this list. However, the Tribunal did not consider this in the petitioners' case, showing a lack of parity in treatment.

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioners' applications was unjust, as there was no consistency in the Tribunal's decisions. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to ensure notional promotion for the petitioners, similar to the earlier case. The Court ordered implementation within 90 days of the judgment, allowing the writ petition.