Suresh Kumar V. Union Of India Through Revenue Secretary Ministry Of Finance And Ors

WPC/6118/2017

AI Insights

Suresh Kumar, the petitioner, sought promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer, claiming entitlement based on seniority and a notification dated 21.12.2004. His original application was filed in 2013, concerning a cause of action from 2004, and was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2017 due to being barred by limitation and lacking merit. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous, particularly the consideration of merits despite the application being dismissed on procedural grounds. The respondents, including various officials from the Income Tax Department and the Union of India, contested the application, highlighting changes in recruitment rules and the absence of a departmental examination during 2003-2005. The High Court, after reviewing the submissions and records, agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of specific allegations of discrimination or evidence of junior personnel being promoted over the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724170 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT VIDYARTHI; RAHUL LAMBA
• Assessee Lawyers: MD ANISURZZAMA KHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Departmental Examination; Income Tax Officer; Promotion; Recruitment Rules; Seniority; Vague Pleadings
• Section: 309

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 6118 of 2017 Suresh Kumar --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi 2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, 3. Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Per.&Vig.), New Delhi 4. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Patna 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna--- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan Through: Video Conferencing --- For the Petitioner: Md. Anisurzzama Khan, Advocate For the Resp.-UoI: Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, CGC For the Resp.-Income Tax: Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate ---- 08 / 17.02.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Md. Anisurzzama Khan and Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Union of India as also Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel for the Respondent Income Tax Department. 2. By the impugned order dated 17.02.2017 (Annexure-13), learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi dismissed the OA/051/00164/2013 with MA/051/0008/2017. The Applicant-petitioner being aggrieved therefrom, has preferred this appeal. 3. The Original Application was preferred with a prayer to direct the Respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Income Tax Officer in view of the Notification dated 21.12.2004 by giving weightage to his seniority with all consequential benefits from the date of eligibility. The Original Application was preferred in the year 2013 and cause of action raised by the petitioner relates to the year 2004. For condonation of delay, MA 08/2017 was filed after three years of filing of Original Application taking grounds of illness of his father from 2000 onwards and later his son. Petitioner did not make any averment to show that any person junior to him has been promoted under the Recruitment Rules, 1994 read with the Notification dated 21.12.2004. Learned Tribunal found the pleadings completely vague. 4. Respondent had contested the case by filing written statement taking a stand that due to the change in the rules position, departmental examination was not held between 2003-2005. The Income Tax officer Group-‘B’ Recruitment Rules, 1994 provided a condition for eligibility for departmental examination 2. which were amended in the year 2004. There was no such provision for deleting the condition for holding departmental examination. Petitioner cannot claim indefeasible right for being promoted. Later, by Notification dated 24.03.2005, the President of India promulgated the Income Tax Officer Group-‘B’ Posts Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2005 in exercise of the power under Proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India which provided that Inspectors of Income Tax in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 with three years regular service in the Grade and who have qualified the departmental examination for Income Tax Officers, were eligible for consideration. Petitioner however, approached the learned Tribunal after nine years for the instant relief with vague pleadings and no foundational facts alleging promotion granted to any person junior to him. Learned Tribunal considered the case of the parties on the basis of the pleadings on record and dismissed it as hopelessly barred by limitation and also without any merit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the O.A. has been dismissed on the grounds of delay, but learned Tribunal has also opined on the merits of the case without proper consideration of the case of the applicant, which needs interference. Petitioner has retired from service in December 2021. 6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials relied upon from the record. Dismissal of OA on grounds of delay do not appear to be suffering from any perversity for this court to substitute its view in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. A perusal of the impugned order and pleadings on record also shows that the petitioner has not shown that any person junior to him was granted promotion, ignoring his claim and thereby discrimination was caused. OA was filed after nine years of alleged cause of action and the delay condonation application was also preferred three years thereafter. Learned Tribunal looked into the merits of the case also, but in absence of any specific averment with proper and complete foundational facts, held that the pleadings are vague. Petitioner has not been able to improve his case beyond that at this stage also. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order calling for interference. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. I.A. No. 7556/2021 stands closed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/ (Deepak Roshan, J) "