ABHISHEK KUMAR MEENA SON OF SHRI GOPAL LAL MEENA V. UNION OF INDIA

CW/7540/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Abhishek Kumar Meena, an Inspector of Income Tax, who sought an inter-charge transfer from New Delhi to Jaipur based on an old policy that allowed transfers when a spouse is posted in a different location. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, had previously rejected his application, leading to this writ petition. The petitioner argued that his request should be considered under the old policy, which he claimed vested a right to transfer. However, the Tribunal and the High Court found that the old policy had been withdrawn and a new policy was in place that did not permit such transfers. The court emphasized that the decision to grant a transfer was discretionary and not an automatic right under the old policy.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686634 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP PATHAK; VARTIKA MEHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDRA BHAN SHARMA
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Income Tax; Inter Charge Transfer; Policy change

Judgement Text

"[2023:RJ-JP:15238-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7540/2023 Abhishek Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Meena, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Karamchari Colony, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. Presently Posted As Inspector Of Income Tax, Office Of Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi, Central Revenue Building, I.p. Estate, New Delhi - 110002. Aspirant For Inter-Charge Transfer From New Delhi To Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi - 110001. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Jan Path, Jaipur - 302005. 3. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi, Central Revenue Building, I. P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002. 4. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Government Of India, Directorate Of Income Tax, Through Hrd, 2Nd Floor, J.l.n. Stadium, Gate No. 1, New Delhi- 110003. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Bhan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Vartika Mehra HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 26/07/2023 1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby an application preferred [2023:RJ-JP:15238-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-7540/2023] by the petitioner seeking transfer to Ganganagar on the ground that there was an earlier policy for such transfer where spouse is posted, had been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the said policy has been withdrawn and as of now the current applicable policy, there is no such clause which would entitle such a transfer. 2. The petitioner is claiming inter-charge transfer only on the basis of an old policy and that too asserting that on an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached the Tribunal vide O.A. No.67/2018, which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.2020, wherein direction was issued to consider the request of the petitioner for such transfer according to the policy. The petitioner did approach the respondents for consideration at the relevant time but before a decision could be taken, the change in policy has come into effect, wherein no inter-charge transfer is now permissible. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that transfer as per the old policy having been vested as a right upon the petitioner, his claim should have been accepted by the department as per the old policy as the representation had been submitted prior to the coming into force of the new policy. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the respondents as well as the Tribunal cannot sustain. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that the earlier policy also, under which the petitioner is claiming inter-charge transfer, did not give a blanket right and merely a consideration was granted and the discretion [2023:RJ-JP:15238-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-7540/2023] was always with the competent authority to either accept the request or to reject the same. Apart from that, at the relevant time when the representation had to be considered by the compeptent authority i.e. the date of consideration, a new policy had come into force which did not permit inter-charge transfer, as has been claimed by the petitioner. The right for consideration, therefore, in the light of the old applicable policy would not accrue or continue or survive after coming into force of the new policy which would be then applicable. The claim of the petitioner having been considered as per the policy prevalent, according to which the request as made in the representation could not have been accepted, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order, as has been passed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure-1). 5. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR/RAJAT/9 "