Bhawani Singh V. Union Of India and Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2

CW/15916/2021

AI Insights

Bhawani Singh, a former Computer Operator in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax - II, Jodhpur, challenged the dismissal of his miscellaneous application by the CAT, which sought to enforce a previous order for his reinstatement. Initially, Singh and others were reinstated following a common order by the CAT in 2012, but Singh did not resume his duties. Over the years, he filed several applications and petitions, including for contempt and review, all of which were dismissed. His latest attempt in 2018 was also dismissed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and timeliness, leading to the present writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 813689 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mahendra Singh & Ors
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH PUROHIT
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Discriminatory; Execution Application; Illegal; Termination; Unwarranted; Writ petition
• Section: 27; 17; 21

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15916/2021 Bhawani Singh S/o Sh. Kuku Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o D.S. Colony, Near Medical College, Jodhpur, Last Employed On The Post Of Computer Operator, In The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary to Govt. Of India, Minister Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Statute Circle, B.D. Road, Jaipur. 3. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Paota C Road, Jodhpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Purohit For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 02/12/2021 By the Court : Per Hon’ble Jain, J. By way of the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.1.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, Bench Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAT’), in miscellaneous application No. 290/00169/2018, whereby the miscellaneous application (Execution) filed by the petitioner was dismissed. (2 of 4) [CW-15916/2021] The facts for adjudication of the writ petition are stated as below:- The petitioner before termination was employed on the post of Computer Operator in the office of Commissioner, Income Tax - II, Jodhpur in the year 2012. The petitioner and the four others approached the CAT challenging their termination and seeking direction for not replacing them by any other source except by way of regular appointment. The learned Tribunal by common order dated 29.10.2012 decided the original application of the applicants alongwith several other original applications filed by similarly situated persons and the applicants and other similarly situated persons were taken back on duty and continued in service by the respondents. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner after lapse of one year on 22.10.2013 filed a representation and thereafter on 14.9.2017, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition before the CAT under Section 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2017. On 12.12.2017, the petitioner filed a review application but the same also came to be dismissed by circulation. Again on the same set of cause of action, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application numbering 290/169/2018, 290/170/2018 for execution of the order dated 29.10.2012 in the year 2018 along with the application for condonation of delay and it was prayed before the Tribunal to direct the respondents to re- engage the petitioner as a casual employee. It is important to submit that the said action was taken by the petitioner in the year 2018. (3 of 4) [CW-15916/2021] On these facts the petitioner claimed for re-appointment in the light of order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 09.1.2019 after hearing the parties dismissed the application on the ground that in compliance of order dated 29.10.2012, the petitioner-applicant had never turned up to join duties. He was never denied to resume his duties by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner is that when similarly situated persons in compliance of the order dated 29.10.2012 were permitted to join the office, denial of indulgence to him in joining duties is discriminatory, illegal and unwarranted specifically when the order passed by the learned Tribunal was in his favor and the SLP filed by Union of India in the case of Mahendra Singh & Ors has been dismissed on 15.02.2016. After considering the arguments advanced by petitioner’s counsel, perusal of memo of writ petition and the impugned order, we are of the view that the petitioner has made an attempt to re- agitate the issue which was concluded by the learned Tribunal with dismissal of his contempt petition in the year 2017. Not only that, the Tribunal has specifically stated that the conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him for grant of prayer requested by him on account of the fact that he never showed any willingness to resume duties in the office of respondent which is reflected from the fact that inspite of passing of favorable order by learned CAT on 29.10.2012, he has never appeared at the office nor did he file any execution application or raise any grievance. Merely on 22.10.2013 a letter was filed which was neither pursued nor any attempt to join was made. It was only in the year 2018 that the (4 of 4) [CW-15916/2021] petitioner has again re-agitated the issue contrary to provisions of Section 21 and 27 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which has set out limitation, qua execution and raising grievance against any cause, order etc. The act of petitioner in approaching the Tribunal after six years is time barred as per the provisions of Section 21 and 27 of Act of 1985. On an overall consideration of the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal and the legal provisions and the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the order dated 09.01.2019 does not call for any interference and is upheld. The application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was rightly dismissed and not entertained. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J Amit/ 37 "