DIPAK KUMAR, SON OF LATE S.S. PRASAD, TAX ASSISTANT, AT PRESENT POSTED IN O/O PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY FINANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the Union of India.

(2.) The review petitioner was one of the respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 10247 of 2015 (Union of India and others Vs. Dhiraj Kumar and others) . From the records it appears that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by us in terms of a separate judgment delivered in C.W.J.C. No. 12515 of 2015 (Union of India and others Vs. Ranjeet Kumar and others) on 11.01.2016 . The issue in the case of Ranjeet Kumar was with regard to Stenographer Grade-III and the question was for consideration of promotion to Stenographer Grade-II. That was a separate cadre from that of Tax Assistant. Tax Assistant is a separate cadre having its own cadre rules.

(3.) In the judgment in the case of Stenographers this Court had held that upon voluntary inter-cadre transfer the person would lose his seniority and he would be placed at the bottom of the seniority-list in the new cadre, but having completed the minimum period of service, which shall include service in the previous cadre, if he is to be considered for promotion, he cannot get the benefit of promotion over his seniors in his new cadre which would otherwise be effectively restoring his loss of seniority. In other words, what we have held was that unless the seniors' case matures for consideration of promotion the juniors cannot be considered for promotion, even though they may have fulfilled the criteria. This principle be applied to the case of Tax Assistants as well. Learned counsel did not bring to our notice the cadre rules in respect of Tax Assistants which reads as follows :