Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Union Of India and Central Board Of Direct Taxes and Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal and Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur and Zonal Account Officer, Bhopal

WPS/2994/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Naresh Kumar Yadav, the petitioner, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, which denied his regularization of service based on a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India). The petitioner argued that his case was analogous to that of Ravi Verma and others, whose regularization was ordered by the Supreme Court. The respondents, including various income tax commissioners and the Union of India, opposed the petition citing delay and laches. However, the court found merit in the petitioner's argument, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in the Ravi Verma case, and thus allowed the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817823 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Others, Ravi Verma And Ors. Vs. Union of India And Ors.
• Laws Referred To: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 1 SCC 1, Civil Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018 [arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 33258-33259 of 2015]
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKANT MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANSHUMAN SHRIVASTAVA; RICHA DWIVEDI
• Keywords: Delay and laches; Regularization; Irregular appointments; Constitutional requirement

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2994 of 2021 1 - Naresh Kumar Yadav @ Naresh Yadav S/o Ramadhar Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Vidya Nagar Gayatri Mandir Chowk, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pin No. 495001. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance, North Block New Delhi 110001 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 110001. 3. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011. 4. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001. 5. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001 6. Zonal Account Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal (M.P.) 462011. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate appears along with Ms. Richa Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board. 31.01.2024 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. Heard. 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Central 2 Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No.441/2012, whereby, the claim of the petitioner seeking his regularization on the basis of the judgment delivered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 1, has been refused. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while referring to the order dated 13.03.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018 [arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 33258-33259 of 2015] in the matter of Ravi Verma And Ors. Vs. Union of India And Ors., submits that since the impugned judgment of the Tribunal has already been set-aside, therefore, the petitioner, be regularized with effect from 01.07.2006 as his case is similar to that of the Appellants therein, i.e. “Ravi Verma And Others”. 3. While opposing the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Union of India that since the petition as framed is suffers from its delay and laches, therefore, he is not entitled to be regularized, as claimed by him. The petition as framed is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that by virtue of the order impugned, the concerned Tribunal has decided other similar matters also, in which, one of the petitioner, namely, Ravi Verma, whose claim was also of similar in nature and which was refused by the Tribunal, as well as by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, was questioned before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, whereby, the common order as delivered by the 3 Tribunal on 11.10.2013, has been set-aside. Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose which read as under :- “12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the considered opinion that appointments were only irregular one, this Court observed in para 53 Uma Devi (supra) thus : “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments, and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 13.In view of the aforesaid decision, the circulars and r egulari-zation of the similarly situated employees at other places and various recommendation that were made the services of the appellants ought to have been regularized in the year 2006; discriminatory 4 treatment has been meted out to them. As per the decision of Uma Devi (supra), they were entitled to regularization of services; they did not serve under the cover of court’s order. Illegality has been committed by not directing regularization of services. 14. We direct that the services of the appellants be regularised w.e.f. 1st July 2006 they are entitled to consequential benefit also let the respondents comply with the order in a period of three months from today. 15. The judgments and orders of the High Court and the CAT are set aside. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.” 6. As observed herein above that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of said Ravi Verma and Others, therefore, the petitioner would also be entitled to get the regularization as passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the said matter of “Ravi Verma And Others Vs. Union of India And Others”. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal on 11.10.2013 in Original Application No. 441/2012, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, is hereby set-aside. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the concerned Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2006 and grant him consequential benefits flowing therefrom within a period of three months from today, failing which, consequential benefits will carry interest @ 10% per annum. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita "