MANU TENTIWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six applicants who are direct recruits of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) appointed on 01.09.2003, have joined together in the present OA, having been aggrieved by the action of the official respondents in promoting the promotee category of ITS officers to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT in short) and claiming that they are senior to the said promotees, and have, therefore, approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with the following prayers: - (i) Declare that all Direct Recruits appointed on 01.09.2003 are entitled to promotion prior to promotees appointed on 05.12.2003 and further direct the Respondents to take all necessary steps pursuant and in furtherance thereof. (ii) In the alternative, call for the records pertaining to the Screening Committee (DPC) meeting dated 17/18.10.2011 held under the aegis of the Department of Revenue and all orders/circulars/communications issued pursuant thereto and quash the same; and (iii) Pass any other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(2.) It is the case of the applicants that their appointment date in the entry grade of IRS (ACIT) as direct recruits is 01.09.2003 whereas the promotees have been appointed to the ACIT grade by promotion as on 05.12.2003. The service conditions of members of IRS irrespective of their appointment by direct recruitment or promotion are governed by the Indian Revenue Service Rules 1988 (the Rules 1988 in short) which inter alia stipulates that the vacancies will be filled up in the ratio of 50:50 between direct recruits and promotees. Rule 9 (iii) provides that the relative seniority will be also in the ratio of 1:1. Some of the applicants approached this Tribunal in OA No.1052/2010 which was considered by the Full Bench. The background of the reference to Full Bench was as follows: - Correctness of law laid by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Shri Sanjeev Pugalia & Others v. Union of India & Others (OA -417/2005) decided on 26.2.2007, insofar as following the rota rules concerned, contained in Rule (iii) of Indian Revenue Service Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) maintaining 1:1 ratio in the seniority between the promotees and direct recruits as well as correctness of the directions in Prabhakant Ayodhya Prasad & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2003 (1) SLJ 317 CAT holding validity of relaxation on quota rules and observing that rota rule cannot be relaxed in the backdrop of wide ramifications on the issue of seniority as large number of Indian Revenue Officer (Income Tax) (for short IRS) being involved, has been referred the Full Bench for a clear and authoritative pronouncement on the subject. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed following order on 2.11.2010 in the said OA: 38.Resultantly, we answer the reference as follows: The official respondents shall, within a period of two weeks by applying the Rules, draw the seniority list and thereafter two weeks time will be allowed to the affected parties to represent. The official respondents, on receipt of the representation(s) within further two weeks time thereafter, finalize the representation(s) and also the seniority list, which shall be published and thereafter they are at liberty as per the seniority position to hold the DPC associating UPSC. In such an event, law shall take its own course. Meanwhile, the promotions effected by the DPC held by the official respondents shall not be acted upon and as per the settled final seniority list, claim of the promotees specifically shall be considered for promotion and those who have retired during this interregnum shall, if found fit on empanelment, be accorded the promotions with all consequences. The time limit laid down by us is to be scrupulously and meticulously followed on strict basis. 39. By answering the reference aforesaid, we have substantially dealt with the grievance raised by the applicants in the OA, as such, keeping in light the time bound directions issued by us, it will be an exercise in futility to send the case back to the Division Bench. Accordingly, OA stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Against the aforesaid judgment, a writ petition was filed before Honble High Court of Delhi. The WP(C) No.8018/2010 is admittedly pending in the High Court, as the order has been reserved, on 18.07.2011, when the arguments were finally heard, the Honble High Court considered the CM No.4376/2011 as infructuous as it was noted that the petitioners had already made ad hoc promotions. It thus emerges that the inter se seniority between the direct recruit and promotee IRS Officers at the ACIT i.e. entry grade having not yet been finally settled. The Department of Revenue has granted both the applicants promotion to the DCIT grade from different dates. Recently, the promotee IRS Officers have been promoted on ad hoc basis to the JCIT grade, after the Screening Committee meeting on 17.10.2011. Even though the applicants representation dated 16.09.2011 is pending with the respondents. Challenging the said ad hoc promotion, they have approached the Tribunal in the present OA.

(3.) On 08.11.2011, when the case came up, MA No.2971/2011 was allowed in following order: Present: Shri Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Kritman Singh and Sh. T. Singhdev counsel for applicant. Sh. U. Srivastava and Sh. A. K. Behera counsel for respondents. Mr. A. K. Behera has filed MA No.2971/2011 seeking impleadment of Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association and Mr. Satpal Singh as a party respondent. A copy of the same has been given to Mr. Kritman Singh, learned counsel for the applicant to which he has no objection. The same is allowed in terms of prayer made therein. Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association and Mr. Satpal Singh are made as a party respondent. The office will carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties. The original and added respondents may file their reply before the next date of hearing. Let the reply be filed even on the date fixed in the court but a copy of the same must be given to the counsel for applicant two days in advance who may respond to the same by filing rejoinder even on the date fixed in the court itself. It is made clear no further adjournment shall be given. List on 29.11.2011. During the hearing on 29.11.2011, it was considered necessary that DOP&T should file the reply affidavit. But, on subsequent dates (15.12.2011 and