Prahlad Sharma V. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India, New Delhi and Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajasthan, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur and Commissioner, Income Tax, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Chamber Bhawan, M.i. Road, Jaipur and Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

WRW/383/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Prahlad Sharma, the petitioner, who sought a review of a previous court order concerning his employment status and attendance at work. The petitioner argued that he was not allowed to mark his attendance due to an alleged misinterpretation of an interim order from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The court examined the departmental note sheet obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI), which detailed the circumstances of the petitioner's attendance and the administrative actions taken regarding his employment. After reviewing the note sheet and the previous orders, the court concluded that there were no grounds for review and dismissed the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700993 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: RTI Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAHLAD SHARMA
• Keywords: Interim order; Review petition; Status quo; Attendance; Departmental note sheet; CAT order

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Writ Review Petition No.383/2017 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13283/2011 Prahlad Sharma S/o Shri Moti Lal Sharma, R/o Plot No. 80, Sunder Nagar, Khatipura Road, Jaipur. ----Review-petitioner/Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajasthan, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner, Income Tax, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Chamber Bhawan, M.i. Road, Jaipur. 4. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma, present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 29/05/2018 1. By way of this review petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief which reads as under: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this review petition and the writ petition may kindly be heard as fresh and review petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 03.10.2017 may kindly be set aside.” (2 of 3) [WRW-383/2017] 2. Petitioner present in person has argued that from the perusal of a copy of departmental Note sheet, received under RTI Act, it reveals that petitioner was not allowed to mark attendance. The said Note sheet reads as under: “16/06/2005 I do not agree with the note put up by the O.S. for the following reasons: i) The CCIT’s office transfer order No.19/NGO/04 dated 13/7/04 has been cancelled vide order No.33/05 dated 25/1/05. Since the original transfer order has been cancelled any relieving order based on that in effect becomes infructuous (as there isn’t any transfer order now). Since the relieving order alone cannot survive the official cannot be treated as relieved. ii) The CAT order only says that the OA has become infructuous because of the subsequent development (i.e. cancellation of transfer order). It also says that Shri Prahlad Sharma will be at liberty to come to CAT again for non- regularisation of intervening period. If the intervening period is not regularized it will only lead to further litigation. iii) The issue that whether the Shri Prahlad Sharma stood relieved from date of issue of relieving order has also not been decided. Shri Prahlad Sharma has pleaded before the CAT that he was not relieved hence the Hon’ble CAT has passed an interim order wherein status quo was required to be maintained. Since there is no proof of service of relieving order on Shri Prahlad Sharma before the date of CAT’s interim order, Shri Prahlad Sharma has a strong case that he did not comply with the relieving order as the CAT’s interim order maintaining status quo was in his favour. iv) The noting in point 6 that Shri Prahlad Sharma was not allowed to work from 24/11/2004 to 24/1/2005 in compliance to CAT’s order is also not correct as apparently there is no such directions in the CAT’s order. (3 of 3) [WRW-383/2017] v) Shri Prahlad Sharma had been coming to the office on regular basis but he was not allowed to sign in the attendance register as the interpretation of CAT’s interim order was in dispute. In view of the above and in the interest of equity and justice it would be fair and reasonable to regularise the service of Shri Prahlad Sharma for the intervening period. Put up for kind perusal and necessary directions.” 3. We have gone through the order impugned passed by CAT as well as our own order passed on 03.10.2017 in the light of above Note sheet. 4. In our considered opinion, no case is made out for review. 5. Hence, the civil review petition is dismissed. 6. Application (8719/2018) stands disposed of. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (K.S.JHAVERI),J Chauhan/35 "