Anil Kumar Saroj and 4 Others V. Union Of India Thru. Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes And 2 Others

WRIA/2638/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a group of petitioners who were appointed as Tax Assistants in the Income Tax Department and later transferred to a different region, where they sought promotion based on their service period in another region. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed a review for promotion eligibility, which was not complied with, leading to a contempt petition. Meanwhile, a related writ petition challenged the Tribunal's order, resulting in a stay on the promotion review. The petitioners sought clarification from the High Court on this stay to proceed with their contempt petition. However, the court dismissed their writ, stating it lacked jurisdiction to clarify its own previous orders or those of a co-ordinate bench.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691887 (HC-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Pratibha Rani and others Vs. Union of India and others, Santosh Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India through Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and Others
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A S G I
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI GOVIND DUBEY
• Keywords: Contempt petition; Income Tax Department; Promotion; Review D.P.C.; Tax assistant; Writ petition

Judgement Text

"1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13799 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2638 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Saroj And 4 Others Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Govind Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri S.B.Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Sri Anand Dwivedi on behalf of opposite parties. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department in the Mumbai Region in the year 2008 and they were subsequently transferred to Lucknow Region on the reverted post of Tax Assistant from the post of Senior Tax Assistant and there grievance was raised by filing several Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. They had prayed for a direction to the respondents to convene the Review D.P.C. and in case the petitioners were found fit, they were liable to be promoted. All the petitions, preferred by the petitioners were clubbed and heard together and by means of an order dated 18.09.2023, all the Original Applications were allowed and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Rani and others Vs. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 31728/2018 with Civil Appeal No. 3793 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32988/2018, it was provided that the period spent by the petitioners in Mumbai Region was to be counted for purposes of eligibility for consideration of promotion and a fresh D.P.C. was directed to be re-convened. 3. It seems that the respondents did not comply with the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and consequently a Contempt Petition was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by the petitioners. In the meanwhile, one Santosh Kumar Yadav had filed a Writ Petition bearing No. Writ-A No.1901 of 2024 before this Court, challenging the order of the 2 Central Administrative Tribunal dated 18.09.2023. This Court by means of order dated 12.03.2024 had passed the following interim order: \"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Singh learned counsel for Union of India. Issue notice to respondent no.3. Steps be taken within ten days. Till the next next date of listing, direction as to convene DPC /Review DPC for consideration of the case of the respondent no.3 for retrospective promotion shall remain in abeyance. The benefit of this order shall not be available, if steps are not taken within the aforesaid period.\" 4. Subsequently, the order of the High Court dated 12.03.2024 was placed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who proceeded to consider the same and passed the order dated 08.05.2024 and also took note of the order passed by this Court dated 12.03.2024. The Tribunal had observed that the applicants have prayed for a direction/clarification from the Hon'ble High Court with regard to the implementation of the order dated 18.09.2023 and in the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed for the following direction: \"Issue a writ, order or direction/Clarification in the nature of mandamus that implementation of order dated 18.09.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 570/2019, O.A. No. 606/2019, O.A. No.569/2019, O.A. No. 543 of 2019, O.A. No. 542 of 2019 has been stayed; as this Hon'ble Court has stayed the order dated 18.09.2023 only with respect to Belas Maurya (Respondent No.3 in Writ A No. 1901 of 2024) vide it's order dated 12.03.2024 passed in Writ A No. 1901 of 2024 (Santosh Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India through Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and Others\" 5. It has been prayed that this Court may clarify its order dated 12.03.2024, so as to enable the Central Administrative Tribunal to proceed with the Contempt Petition to ensure implementation of the order dated 18.09.2023. 6. Sri S.B.Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that 3 the prayer sought in the present writ petition for clarification of the order of this Court, no writ petition would be maintainable and in case the petitioners want to seek any clarification of the order of the High Court dated 12.03.2024, it would be open for him to move an appropriate application in the said writ petition. Accordingly, he submits that the prayer made by the petitioners in the present writ petition itself is beyond the powers conferred on this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, no writ can be filed for clarification of a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench or a Bench of larger constitution. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the proposition stated by Sri S.B.Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. 8. After hearing rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I noticed that the contempt proceedings are pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal for implementation of the order dated 18.09.2023, but the same is not proceeding on account of an interim order of this Court dated 12.03.2024. It is for the petitioners to have appropriately approached the Division Bench for redressal of the grievance, if any, with regard to the order passed in Writ A No. 1901 of 2024: Santosh Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India, rather than filing a fresh writ petition and seeking clarification of the order passed in another writ petition. No such jurisdiction is conferred on this Court, while exercising power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to merely interpret an order of a co-ordinate Bench without deciding any list between the parties. A bare reading of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India would indicate that when a person aggrieved with violation of his rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution of India, writ jurisdiction can be involved in appropriate cases. It could not be demonstrated or even averred that passing of the interim order of this Court has violated the rights, if any, of the petitioners under Part III of the Constitution of India and even otherwise, it is settled proposition of law that no writ is maintainable against a judicial order, inasmuch as no judicial order can be deemed to violate rights of any individual under Part III of the Constitution of India. We further find force in submission of learned counsel for Union of India that writ petition would not be maintainable for seeking relief of clarification of another order of the writ court. 4 9. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reason, I do not find a fit case for interference and apart from which, I find that the writ petition is not maintainable for the prayer made in the present writ petition. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Arvind Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench "