SANDOSH KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/37340/2007

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sandosh Kumar.K.A. and Ajitha.K., challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, which dismissed their application (O.A.No.81/2006). The applicants, who were Office Superintendents in the Income Tax Department, contested the legality of certain promotional orders and letters issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The Tribunal had upheld these orders, leading to the writ petition. The High Court found the Tribunal's decision to be insufficiently reasoned and remanded the case for a detailed examination of the applicants' grievances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 678805 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N NAGRESH; M R HARIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: M NAMBIAR; P GOPINATH
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Income Tax; Legal and valid; Promotion; Seniority; Office Superintendent

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938 WP(C).No. 37340 of 2007 (S) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 81/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 07-12-2007 PETITIONERS : ------------- 1. SANDOSH KUMAR.K.A., S/O.LATE AMBUJAKSHNAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL) KOCHI-18, RESIDING AT C-43, INCOME TAX RESIDENTAIL COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. 2. AJITHA.K., D/O. LATE P. KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-11, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENTS : -------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. WP(C).No. 37340 of 2007 (S) 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-18. 4. S.BHASI, SENIOR TAX ASSISTANT, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-18. 5. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1TO3&5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.KUMARAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37340 of 2007 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER No.F No.II/Estt/3/CC- CHN/CON DATED 28.3.2005 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER No.41015/19/2002-Ad.VII (Pt.II DTD.7.3.2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER No.F No.A-11013/3/98-Ad.VII DTD.30.3.2001 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT [F No.48/1/01-AP/DOMS]. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER No.F No.48/1/2001- AP/DOMS/403 DTD.19.7.2001. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.No.A11013/8/2001-Ad VII DTD.22.11.2002 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER No.F No.11/Estt/14/CC- CHN/CON/2001-02 DTD.28.12.2001 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER No.F No.23/Estt/45/CS/2003- 04 DTD.12.9.2003 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER No.F No.12/Estt/6/CC- CHN/2005-06 DTD.28.4.2005 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE LETTER No.F No.41015/40/2005- Ad.VII DTD.8.12.2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE LETTER No.11/Estt/CC- CHN/DTD.7.2.2006 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN O.A.194/05. EXT.P12 : COPY OF O.A.81/06 WITH ANNEXURES. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.17.2.06 IN O.A.81/06. EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DTD.10.11.06 IN O.A.81/06. WP(C).No. 37340 of 2007 (S) EXT.P15 : COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED IN O.A.81/06. EXT.P16 : COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN O.A.81/06. EXT.P17 : COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DTD.12.4.2007 IN O.A.82/06. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL. True copy P.A to Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.37340 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2016 JUDGMENT Anil K.Narendran, J. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P16 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.81/2006. The petitioners filed the O.A. before the Tribunal praying for an order for the following reliefs:- i. To declare that Annexure A-15 and A-16 and CBDT letter dated 30.01.2006 referred to in Annexure A-16 are ultra vires, unconstitutional and void; ii. To call for the records leading to Annexure A-15 and A-16 and CBDT letter dated 30.01.2006 referred to in Annexure A-16 and to set aside the same; iii. To issue appropriate direction or order directing the respondents to allow the applicants to continue in the post of Office Superintendent without regard to Annexure A-15 and A-16; iv. To issue appropriate direction or order directing the respondents not to proceed with Annexures A-15 and W.P.(C)No.37340 of 2007 2 A-16 and to restrain them from implementing Annexures A-15 and A-16 to the the prejudice of the applicants; v. to grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and just in the circumstances of the case; 2. The prayer sought in the O.A. was opposed by the official respondents by filing Ext.P13 reply statement followed by Ext.P14 additional reply statement. The petitioners have also filed Ext.P15 rejoinder. The aforesaid O.A. was heard along with connected applications, namely, O.A.Nos.194 of 2005 & 82 of 2006. After hearing both the sides the Tribunal passed Ext.P16 order holding that Exts.P9 and P10 letters dated 8.12.2005 and 30.1.2006 are legal and valid. The reasoning of the Tribunal as contained in paragraph 21 of the judgment reads thus:- “21. ..........We find that the reliefs sought by the applicants in OA-194/2005 has already been met by the respondents during the pendency of this OA by issuing the letter No.11/Estt/CC-CHN/2005-06 dated 8.3.2006 by which the seniority position in the cadre of Office Superintendent have been revised and all the applicants W.P.(C)No.37340 of 2007 3 have been promoted as Office Superintendent. This was done in pursuance of the Board's letter No.41015/40/2005-Ad-VII dated 8.12.2005 and the clarification dated 30.1.2006. In our considered view the aforesaid letter dated 8.12.2005 and 30.1.2006 are legal and valid. The respondents have effected all promotions prior to 8.12.2005 in pursuance of the CBDT letter dated 7.3.2005. The subsequent promotions were made in accordance with the draft Recruitment Rules. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in these promotions. Resultantly the aforesaid letter dated 8.3.2006 is upheld. Since the respondents themselves have redressed the grievances of the applicants in this case during the pendency of the OA, it has become infructuous and it is disposed of accordingly. For the very same reasons, OA.81/06 and 82/06 should fail. They are, therefore, dismissed. The interim order passed in these OAs. restraining the respondents from reverting the applicant till these OAs are disposed of is also vacated.” 3. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal the petitioners, namely, the applicants in O.A.No.81/2006 are before this Court in this writ petition. 4. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India W.P.(C)No.37340 of 2007 4 appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 5. Though the Tribunal has extracted in detail the contentions raised by the applicants and also the stand taken by the respondents in their reply statement as seen from paragraphs 13 to 16 of the judgment, the contentions referred to therein were not dealt with while passing the impugned order. 6. Prima facie the order passed by the Tribunal is a non- speaking order. In that view of the matter the impugned order of the Tribunal dismissing O.A.No.81/2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal shall pass a reasoned order after referring to the contentions raised by both parties. 7. Since the O.A. is of the year 2006 the Tribunal shall dispose of the Original Application as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 8. We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the rival contentions and it is for the Tribunal to W.P.(C)No.37340 of 2007 5 take an appropriate decision, after considering the merits of the case. Both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 6.6.2016. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A to Judge "