2022 (12) TMI 506 - HC - Income Tax

Promotion with retrospective effect - Consequential benefits to be included a salary in a post applicant has not worked - whether consequential benefits cannot include salary attached to a post in which they had not worked? - HELD THAT - It is the case of the petitioners/department that they have complied with the order dated 27.11.2019 and in their understanding, consequential benefits cannot include salary attached to a post in which they had not worked. We are unable to countenance this submission. It is trite law that it is not open for the litigant to interpret the judgment and we also do not propose to enter upon the correctness of the said submission as the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay alone. Its is not in dispute that the order has been partially complied with by granting promotion to the respondents from the date on which the promotion was given to the junior and now when contempt petitions are preferred, the instant writ petitions are filed belatedly that too after a passage of nearly 2 years. The writ petitions stand rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The dismissal of the writ petitions shall not come in the way of the petitioners seeking any clarification from the tribunal so far as grant of consequential benefits particularly regarding entitlement of arrears of salary for the period not worked. Petitions stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether consequential benefits include salary for a post not worked?

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Karnataka dealt with writ petitions involving the question of whether consequential benefits would encompass a salary in a post where the applicant has not worked. The petitioners, who were serving as Inspectors in the Department of Income Tax, raised concerns about their juniors being promoted despite not completing the required three years of service. The tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants, granting them promotion with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits. However, the department contended that consequential benefits should not include the salary of a post not worked. The court noted that litigants cannot interpret judgments, and the petitioners' delay in filing the writ petitions after partial compliance with the tribunal's order led to their rejection on grounds of delay and laches.

The court emphasized that the petitioners could seek clarification from the tribunal regarding the grant of consequential benefits, specifically concerning arrears of salary for the period not worked. While dismissing the writ petitions due to delay, the court granted the petitioners the liberty to seek clarification from the tribunal on the issue of consequential benefits. The dismissal of the petitions did not preclude the petitioners from pursuing further clarification on the entitlement to arrears of salary for the period not worked.

Overall, the judgment highlighted the importance of timely legal actions, as delays in seeking remedies can lead to the rejection of petitions on grounds of delay and laches. The court's decision underscored the need for clarity on the scope of consequential benefits and left open the possibility for the petitioners to seek further clarification from the tribunal on the specific issue of entitlement to arrears of salary for the period not worked.