M P Krishna and Shiva Kumar and Daniel J A and S Ramesh and G Ganesh and Shantharaju K and Abdul Sameel A and Hanumantharappa A V V. Union of India through the Finance Secretary and Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka and Goa Region

WP/21863/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a group of casual laborers with temporary status employed in various Income Tax offices in Bengaluru, who filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The petitioners sought retrospective benefits and regularization of their services, which the Tribunal had previously not addressed. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioners the opportunity to make a comprehensive representation for prospective benefits but not addressing their claims for retrospective benefits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803833 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M.P. Krishna and Others vs. UOI and Others
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: UNNIKRISHNAN; C G PRAMOD
• Assessee Lawyers: TARSEM GUPTA
• Keywords: Casual labour; Income Tax; Regularization; Temporary Status; Writ petition; Retrospective Benefits; Prospective Benefits
• Section: 231/2020; 11/2022

Judgement Text

" - 1 - WP No. 21863 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 21863 OF 2022 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. M P KRISHNA S/O SHRI PUTTA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS CASUAL LABOUR WITH TEMPORARY STATUS (CLTS) INCOME TAX OFFICE, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU - 560032 2. SHIVA KUMAR S/O SHRI BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS CASUAL LABOUR WITH TEMPORARY STATUS O/O THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE - 2(3) 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560095 3. DANIEL J A S/O SHRI A JEYARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS CASUAL LABOUR WITH TEMPORARY STATUS O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560095 4. S RAMESH Digitally signed by NIRMALADEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 21863 of 2022 S/O SHRI SHIVANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS CASUAL LABOUR WITH TEMPORARY STATUS O/O THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP) RANGE -1, 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560095 5. G GANESH S/O SHRI GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CASUAL LABOUR WITH TEMPORARY STATUS O/O THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE - 1(2) 1ST FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560095 6. SHANTHARAJU K S/O SHRI KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS CASUAL LABOUR WITH TEMPORARY STATUS O/O THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU - 560095 7. ABDUL SAMEEL A S/O SHRI ABDUL BASHEER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS CASUAL LABOUR WITH TEMPORARY STATUS O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - 9 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560095 8. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA A V S/O SHRI ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS CASUAL LABOUR WITH TEMPORARY STATUS O/O THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE - 4 (3) 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560095 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. TARSEM CHAND GUPTA., ADVOCATE) - 3 - WP No. 21863 of 2022 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110001 2. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGSC FOR R1 SRI. C G PRAMOD, ASG FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO VIEW OF THE FACTS AND GROUNDS ENUMERATED ABOVE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT ORDER DATED 22.04.2016 IN O.A. NO. 231/2020 AND DATED 05.02.2018 IN R.A. NO. 11/2022 PASSED BY THE CAT BENCH BANGALORE (M.P. KRISHNA AND OTHERS V/S UOI AND OTHERS) ANNEXURE - A AND B MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE WP MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE BENEFITS ALONG WITH DUE INTEREST. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, G. NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2022 rendered in O.A. No.170/00231/2020, whereby, the Tribunal has been pleased to reject the application. While rejecting the application, the Tribunal has been pleased to reserve liberty to the applicants to make a - 4 - WP No. 21863 of 2022 proper and comprehensive representation afresh before the respondent for prospective benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend the petitioners were entitled to the retrospective benefits but the Tribunal has restricted the claim only to the future and has virtually negated the past services rendered by the petitioners. 4. In our considered opinion, the said conclusion and interpretation placed upon by the petitioners appears to be wholly baseless. It is apparent that the Tribunal has neither entered upon nor decided the liability of the petitioners for regularization, muchless, as prayed for by learned counsel for the applicants to decide the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the consequential benefits from the date of their appointment or from the date of the application. The Tribunal having not entered upon and considered the issue of regularization or the claim made by the petitioners, the contention canvassed is a bit strange. The question of retrospective or prospective entitlement, would arise only after the claim for regularization is adjudicated. - 5 - WP No. 21863 of 2022 5. In that view of the matter, writ petition is wholly misconceived. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed but once again reiterating the liberty granted by the Tribunal. It is open for the petitioners/applicants to make a fresh representation. The representation shall contain all particulars and details as would be necessary and to enable the respondents to consider and adopt the holistic approach and thereby consider the case of the petitioners on merits. With the above observations, writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 "