NAGENDRA PRASAD V. UNION OF INDIA

WP/20960/2022

AI Insights

Nagendra Prasad, an employee of the Income Tax Department, filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of his application by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT had dismissed his application on the grounds that employees do not have a vested right to choose their place of work, and the transfer decisions are at the discretion of the employer based on public interest and administrative needs. The Tribunal also dismissed the application due to delay, noting that the request for transfer under the ICT policy was made in 2012, but the application was filed in 2022. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that the application was barred by limitation and that the petitioner had not provided satisfactory reasons to condone the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737576 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B PRAMOD
• Assessee Lawyers: TARSEM GUPTA
• Keywords: Delay and laches; Judicial review; Transfer of employees; ICT policy
• Section: 170/00223/2022

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31718-DB WP No. 20960 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 20960 OF 2022 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: NAGENDRA PRASAD, S/O GIRISH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, O/o THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, AND TPS, BELUR ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TARSEM CHAND GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31718-DB WP No. 20960 of 2022 3. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, B & J REGION, PATNA - 800 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYED THAT ORDER DATED 29.08.2022 IN OA.NO-223/2022 PASSED BY THE CAT BENCH BANGALORE (NAGENDRA PRASAD VS UOI AND OTHERS) ANNEXURE-A MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE WP MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND RESPONDENTS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE REMAINING FORMALITIES OF ICT AND RELIEVE THE PETITIONER TO JOIN PATNA REGION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31718-DB WP No. 20960 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.170/00223/2022, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein by stating in paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7 as under: “5. It is well settled legal principle that the employee has no vested right to choose the place of work and it is for the employer to decide about the transfer of the employees based on public interest and administrative exigencies. The terms of the ICT policy would not be perennial in nature, more particularly, when such scheme was withdrawn. These policy decisions are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review and in particular the transfer matters, unless arbitrariness or malafides are alleged and proved or such orders are issued by an authority having no jurisdiction. Even if we - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31718-DB WP No. 20960 of 2022 examine the case of the applicant in this background, no cogent ground is found to reopen the issues which do not subsist due to the subsequent developments i.e., on withdrawal of the ICT policy itself by the respondents and the clarification issued by the CBDT. 6. It is well settled principle that the Courts/Tribunals can come to the rescue of the litigant who is vigilant about his rights and not to a person who sleeps over the matter for years together and raise from the slumber like a phoenix. The belated claim made by the applicant to suit his convenience deserves to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches alone. Though an attempt was made by the applicant to offer an explanation for the delay caused in filing MA.268/2022, the same cannot be considered as satisfactory explanation to condone the inordinate delay at this length of time and to grant the reliefs as sought for. 7. In our considered opinion, for the reasons discussed above, the original Application is bereft of merits and accordingly, liable to be dismissed. In the result, both the MA.268/2022 and Original Application stand dismissed. No order as to costs”. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31718-DB WP No. 20960 of 2022 2. The submission of learned counsel Mr.Tarsem Chand Gupta appearing for the petitioner is that, the petitioner had filed an application seeking the benefit of ICT Policy in the year 2012, but the petitioner was treated differently in as much as persons who had lesser period of service have been allowed to avail the benefit of the ICT. 3. On a specific query to Mr.Gupta as to whether those persons have been made a party in the Original Application, his answer is in ‘negative’. If that be so and also because the Tribunal has dismissed the petition primarily on the ground of delay with which conclusion we agree in as much as the request for seeking the benefit of the ICT having been made on 03.07.2012 and the Original Application was filed in the year 2022, the same was clearly barred by time. Even otherwise, the plea that till 2017 the case was under consideration, shall not help the case of the petitioner as the original application was still barred by limitation. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31718-DB WP No. 20960 of 2022 4. In view of the facts of this case, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petition being without merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 "