CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES Vs. ANURADHA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present review petition is filed for review of the order dtd. 21/1/2020 made in Writ Petition No.25502/2018 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents; setting aside the order dtd. 7/2/2018 passed in O.A.Nos.621-623/2016 by the KAT and consequently directing the review petitioners herein to ensure that notional promotion of the respondents herein is considered as it was done in the case of D.B. Manival Raju - applicant in O.A.No.170/01698/2015 which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 21/6/2017. I Facts of the case

(2.) The present respondents, filed O.A.Nos.621-623/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench to set aside the three orders dtd. 19/10/2015 as per Annexures-19, 20 and 21 and direct the review petitioners herein to grant applicants/respondents pro-forma/notional promotion to the post of Principal Commissioners of Income Tax and consequential retirement benefits as per ACC list dtd. 30/1/2015 Annexure-A5 for the panel year 2013-14 from 31/5/2014 when the posts were created as per CBDT Notification-Annexure-A4, contending that the applicants/respondents through an All India Civil Service Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) were appointed to the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) and joined service in the Cadre of ITO Group 'A'/Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax and secured their regular promotions and finally reached to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). Applicants retired on 30/9/2013, 25/5/2014 and 31/12/2014 respectively. It was further contended that the Department prepared a list of eligible candidates from the cadre of CIT to be promoted as Principal CIT against these 300 newly created posts of Principal CIT. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered the eligible candidates and submitted its recommendations to the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for approval of the proposal for empanelment of officers for promotion to the post of Principal CIT against the panel year 2013- 14 which was approved on 30/1/2015 and the names of the present applicants were figured at Serial Nos.11, 27 and 38 respectively in the list of officers approved in the regular panel. On the same day, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance issued an order Annexure-A6 giving effect to the approval of the ACC. Unfortunately, by the time, the order Annexure-A6 could be issued, these applicants had got already retired from service and consequently, they could not be promoted despite their names having been found in the promotion list approved by the ACC. Hence, on these and several other grounds raised, the applicants sought the reliefs as prayed for before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, by the order dtd. 7/2/2018 dismissed the original applications and confirmed the instructions contained in Office Memorandums of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Annexures-A7 and A8, holding that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India etc., etc - vs- K.V. Jankiraman and others,(1991)4 SCC 109 . Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, the present respondents filed a writ petition i.e., W.P. Nos.25502/2018 before this Court.