RAJEEV MOHAN Vs. C A T ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J). 1.These two writ petitions were clubbed together and are being deciding by this common judgment. These writ petitions have been filed by same petitioner against the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the "Tribunal") claiming seniority and other benefits as Income Tax Inspector. Hearing in both the writ petitions commenced together, but in Writ Petition No.56072/2010, hearing was concluded and judgment reserved on 31/1/2012, whereas the hearing of the Writ Petition No.23672/2006 could be concluded and judgment reserved on 21/3/2012. However, the issues involved in both the writ petitions being interconnected, both the writ petitions are decided by this common judgment. The facts giving rise to these two writ petitions are as follows: Writ Petition No.23672/2006: The petitioner appeared in the Income Tax Inspector Examination, 1987 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission as a candidate from Maharashtra Zone. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared on 25/6/1988 and the petitioner topped the said examination. The petitioner was issued appointment letter by the Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka, Bangalore appointing him as Income Tax Inspector, Panaji, Goa where he joined as Income Tax Inspector on 13/10/1988. After his joining, petitioner submitted an application dated 28/1/1989 for transfer from Goa to Mumbai, which was rejected on 09/5/1989 on the ground that his request for transfer could be considered only after completion of 3 years of service since the transfer of the petitioner was inter-charge transfer. After completion of 3 years of service, petitioner made an application seeking his transfer to Kanpur Region. By an order dated 10/12/1991, passed by the Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Kanpur petitioner was transferred from Karnataka charge to Kanpur charge. The petitioner joined at Kanpur on 10/1/1992. The order dated 10/12/1991, provided that the petitioner shall reckon his seniority from the date when he join at Kanpur charge and his name shall be placed below all working Inspectors (Permanent/Temporary).

(2.) ONE Shri Ram Kumar Bhargava, filed an O.A. No.1421/2001, in the Tribunal, at Allahabad Bench claiming determination of seniority as Direct Recruit Income Tax Inspector which was disposed of by the order of Tribunal dated 03/12/2011, directing for considering his representation pertaining to claim of seniority. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the seniority of Income Tax Inspector was redetermined, adversely affecting the petitioner. The petitioner filed representation dated 10/6/2002 claiming following reliefs: "(A)Restoring his posing as Inspector of Income Tax in Maharashtra (Mumbai) region and to promote him as Income Tax Officer retrospectively and, (B) Till the above relief A is given his name be placed above Shri Kapil Agarwal in the gradation list of Kanpur and, (C) Till the relief B is given to him his name should be placed above all the direct recruited Inspectors who were not working in the Department at the date of his joining i.e. 10/1/1992."

(3.) AS noted above, O.A. No.1421/2001, was filed by Shri Ram Kumar Bhargava before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by the order of Tribunal dated 03/12/2001, directing the respondents to consider the representation of Shri Ram Kumar Bhargava taking into consideration the judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal dated 23/2/2000, passed in O.A. No.2307/1999 in the case of Sanjeev Mahajan, wherein the Principal Bench had quashed the seniority list dated 08/2/1999 and directed for determination of seniority of Direct Recruits from the date on which the recruiting authority makes the selection of Direct Recruits. On the basis of the order of the Tribunal dated 03/12/2001, the entire seniority list of Income Tax Inspector Direct Recruits, promotees and inter-charge transferee was redetermined by giving seniority to the direct recruits from the date of sending requisition for selection to the recruiting authority. It was claimed before the Tribunal that the seniority list was prepared, but never published. In the seniority list as on 01/1/2002, the name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 387 and the name of the respondent no.4, Shri Arvind Kumar Trivedi was placed at Serial No. 326, making the petitioner much junior to the respondent no.4. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 17/8/2004, in the case of Union of India Vs. N.R. Parmar before the Tribunal as well as on the order of the Apex Court dated 20/3/2006 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) No. 9181-9185-2005.