Smt. Ram Kanwari V. Union of India and The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) and The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagaur Range and The Central Administrative Tribunal, at Bench Jodhpur

WRW/103/2014

AI Insights

Smt. Ram Kanwari, a former sweeper from the Income Tax Department, filed a review petition against the dismissal of her writ petition concerning her regularization in service. The High Court had previously dismissed her writ petition, stating that her case had been considered and rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The review petition challenged the court's observations that her case had been considered twice and that her age disqualified her from regularization. The court found that the petitioner did not raise these issues during the original writ petition and that the legal precedents cited did not support her case for review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 815323 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Haridas Das vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors., Satya Prakash & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., Young Men Christian Association vs. Holy Mother of Aurobindo Ashram & Ors., Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Yashwant Singh Negi, Sandhya vs. State of Maharashtra
• Laws Referred To: Haridas Das vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1634, Satya Prakash & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 179, Young Men Christian Association vs. Holy Mother of Aurobindo Ashram & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 382, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Yashwant Singh Negi, (2013) 3 CDR 814, Sandhya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 361
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: S P SHARMA
• Keywords: Age limit; Central Administrative Tribunal; Income Tax Department; Regularization; Writ Review

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ------------------------------------------------ WRIT REVIEW (WRW) No. 103 of 2014 PETITIONER Smt. Ram Kanwari W/o Shri Jawari Lal, aged-61 Years, R/o Harijan Basti, near Gandhi Chhatrawas, Nagaur. (Hall Ex-Sweeper from the Office of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Department, Nagaur Range, Nagaur (Rajasthan) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. UNION OF INDIA, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Income Tax, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) New C.R.Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagaur Range, Income Tax Office, Nagaur. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, at Bench Jodhpur through its Registrar Date of Order : 23.9.2016 HON'BLE MR. GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS,J. HON'BLE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI,J. MR SP SHARMA, for the Petitioner ORDER ----- This review petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for reviewing the order 2 dated 09.05.2014 passed in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2012/2014, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the order dated 09.05.2014, it is wrongly observed that “it is not in dispute that, Tribunal has directed the respondents twice to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and in pursuance thereof, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same”. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner was never considered after passing of the order dated 18.08.2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1862007 and, therefore, the Court has erred in making such observations and the said error is liable to be rectified. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that this Court while passing the order dated 09.05.2014 also erred in making the observations that “it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has already attained the age of 60 years in July, 2013 and therefore, her case for regularization cannot be considered at this stage.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has 3 placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haridas Das vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1634; Satya Prakash & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 179; Young Men Christian Association vs. Holy Mother of Aurobindo Ashram & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 382; Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Yashwant Singh Negi, (2013) 3 CDR 814 and; Sandhya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 361. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is noticed that Central Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 24.01.2014 has observed as under: “7. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also perused the order dated 15.12.2006. As per the reply, case of the applicant has already been considered twice, therefore, there appears to be no irregularity or illegality in the action of the respondents as her case was considered effectively.” In the writ petition, the petitioner had not challenged the said finding of the Tribunal and now she is claiming that the Court had wrongly observed that the case of the petitioner was considered twice. 4 In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any new ground, which was not specifically raised in the writ petition. The another contention of the petitioner regarding the observation in the order dated 09.05.2014 to the effect that the petitioner attained the age of 60 years in July, 2013, therefore, her case for regularization cannot be considered at this stage, is not tenable since the Court had simply observed that the factum of attaining the age of 60 years by the petitioner in July 2013, and thereafter the Court had observed that on account of that her case for regularization cannot be considered at this stage. The Court has never intended that the petitioner has not disputed that her case cannot be regularized at the age of 60 years. The judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred by the petitioner in Haridas Das vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors., Young Men Christian Association vs. Holy Mother of Aurobindo Ashram & Ors. and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Yashwant Singh Negi (supra) are related to the powers of review by the Court and 5 there is no quarrel about proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases. However, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for review. Hence, the above cited judgments are of no help to the petitioner. The other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred by the petitioner in Satya Prakash & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and Sandhya vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) are related to regularization of service of employees, however, the said judgments were not relied upon by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the case and the same cannot be considered while deciding the review petition. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the review petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (VIJAY BISHNOI), J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. m.asif/PS Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) "