SRI.T.MUDALAGIRIYAPPA V. UNION OF INDIA

WP/39332/2013

AI Insights

The case involves a group of Income Tax Officers (petitioners) who were reverted to their previous positions as Income Tax Inspectors following an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). This reversion was based on an earlier Tribunal decision concerning promotions during 1995-2000, which the petitioners argued did not apply to them as they were promoted in 2008. The High Court of Karnataka, upon reviewing the matter, upheld the CAT's decision, stating that the petitioners' promotions were not merit-based and thus subject to the Tribunal's earlier ruling. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679976 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M VASUDEVA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: P A KULKARNI
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Income Tax Officer; Interim order; Merit; Promotion; Stay of reversion; Cadre and Recruitment Rules

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 39332-41/2013 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI T.MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS, S/o SRI THIMMAPPA, OCC: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, WARD-1, P.B.ROAD, HAVERI: 581110. 2. SRI RAVISH K.N., 45 YEARS, S/o SRI K.NARAYANA NAIK, OCC: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, RADHIKA PLAZA, COURT ROAD, PUTTUR: 574201 (D.K.DISTRICT) 3. SRI PRAKASH H.ALALAGERI, 48 YEARS, S/o SRI HANUMANTHAPPA A.A., OCC: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PARK VIEW BUILDING, P.G.EXTENSION, DAVANGERE: 577002. 4. SRI Y.M.NAVALGUND, 47 YEARS, S/o SRI MAHADEVAPPA, OCC: TAX RECOVERY OFFICER RANGE-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, BELGAUM: 590001. 2 5. SRI PARAMESHWARA M., 41 YEARS, S/o SRI BATYA NAIK M., OCC: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SANTERI KRUPA BUILDING, KAIGA ROAD, KARWAR: 581306. 6. SRI D.THIPPESWAMY, 49 YEARSM S/o SRI DIVAKARAPPA G, OCC: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), O/o JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2, HUDA BUILDINGS, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI: 580025. 7. SMT.NALINI A, 48 YEARS, W/o SRI PRABHAKARAN, OCC: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3), R.P.BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE: 560001. 8. SRI RAVI KUMAR, 50 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI DASAPPA, OCC: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1), O/o JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HMT BHAVAN, GANGANAGAR, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE: 560032. 9. SRI N.LOKESHA, 45 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI M.NARAYANA, OCC: INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BELUR ROAD, HASSAN:573201. 10. SRI NITHYANANDAN R., AGED 50 YEARS, S/o SRI M.RAMALINGAM, OCC: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), O/o JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3, C.R.BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI: 580025. …PETITIONERS (SRI. P.A.KULKARNI, ADV.) 3 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, TO BE REPTD. BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, IN CHARGE OF CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, JEEVANDEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI: 110001. 2. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI: 110001. 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE–1, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.VASUDEVA RAO, Sr. CGSC) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTERIM ORDER DT.30.08.2013 PASSED IN O.A.No.854 TO 863/2013 ANNX-A BY HON’BLE CAT BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, N KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R These writ petitions are filed challenging refusing to grant of interim order of stay of the impugned order by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4 2. The petitioners are all working as Income Tax Officers Group ‘B’ in the Department of Revenue. By the impugned order dated 30.08.2013 they are reverted to the earlier post of Income Tax Inspectors. The said reversion was made in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal by an earlier round of litigation between others. Therefore, the petitioners have approached the Tribunal contending that the earlier order passed by the Tribunal has no application in so far as they are concerned. But the Tribunal held prima facie they are satisfied that the impugned order is passed in terms of the earlier order of the Tribunal, no hardship or inconvenience would be caused by giving effect to the said order. Therefore, the Tribunal has declined to grant order of stay. However, it made it clear that the order of reversion is subject to the final decision to be rendered by the Tribunal in the application pending 5 before it. It is against the said order the present writ petitions are filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned order contends, they were all promoted in terms of the Rule governing the promotion on the date of promotion. The order of the Tribunal to which reference is made pertains to promotions for the period 1995-2000, whereas these petitioners were granted promotion in the year 2008 and therefore, he submits the Tribunal was not justified in not granting the interim order of stay as sought for. 4. The material on record discloses that these petitioners were granted promotion earlier. If merit was the consideration they would not have got the promotion. The question whether the said promotion is based on merit or it is based on Cadre and Recruitment Rules, it is in this context, the reliance is placed on the order passed by the Tribunal directing 6 them to reconsider their promotion given in the Department during the period 1995-2000. The authorities are of the view, if the said order of the Tribunal was given effect to, these petitioners have to be reverted. As admittedly these petitioners who have given promotion do not have the requisite merits, is merit the consideration and whether what should be consideration is the subject matter to be decided on merits. The Tribunal was justified in declining to grant the interim order of stay. 5. In that view, we did not see any justification to interfere with the said impugned order passed by the Tribunal. No merits, dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rbv/- "