Original Application No. 358/2007, Original Application No. 359/2007, Original Application No. 360/2007. Case: 1. Jagdish Prasad Raiger S/o Laxman Ram, Inspector, Income Tax, O/o Income Tax Commissioner-II, Jaipur, 2. Ramkesh Meena S/o Sarwan Lal Meena, Inspector, Income Tax, Office of ITO, Ward No.1, Sawaimadhopur, 3. Maliram Khanagwal S/o Nathu Lal Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi, 2. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) (Cadre Controlling Authority), New Central Revenue Building, Jaipur, 3. Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur, 4. Namo Narain Meena, Inspector, Income Tax, Office of Additional Commissioner, Range-I, Kota. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No. 358/2007, Original Application No. 359/2007, Original Application No. 360/2007 |
| Judges | K. S. Rathore (Judicial Member) & Anil Kumar (Administrative Member) |
| Issue | Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16, 309 |
| Judgement Date | May 19, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
(Jaipur Bench)
1. As the common question of law & facts are involved in these aforesaid OA, these are disposed of by a common order. The fact of OA No. 358/2007 has been taken as a lead case.
2. The controversy in the aforesaid OA is with regard to letter No. CC/JPR/Admn./Sen.-List/2007-08/564 dated 27.09.2007 wherein various seniority lists have been revised whereby the position of the applicant in the cadre of Senior Tax Assistant as on 01.01.2004 has been lower down and his name from the seniority list of Inspector issued as on 01.01.2007 has been deleted.
3. The respondents have filed reply to the OA. In their reply, they have submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is fully covered by the judgment rendered by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dhiraj Negi & Others vs. Union of India & Others [OA No. 1972/2002 decided on 03.10.2003]. (Annexure R/3).
4. We have thoroughly examined the case of the applicant and after carefully scanning the judgment rendered by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1972/2002 decided on 03.10.2003, whether the ratio decided by the Principal Bench is applicable to the present OA or not, first of all we have to examine the relief claimed by the applicant in this OA, which is reproduced as under:-
(i) the revised seniority list of Senior Tax Assistant showing position as on 1.1.2004 (Annexure A/1) may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the applicant. Further respondents may be directed to maintain the name of the applicant in the seniority list of Inspector issued showing position as on 1.1.2007 (i.e. Annexure A/8) may kindly be ordered. Further the respondents may be directed not to pass any order prejudicial to the applicant and even if any order is issued during the pendency of this Original Application, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) the Original Application may kindly be allowed with costs.
(iii)Any other relief to which the applicant is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may also be granted in favour of the applicant.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was promoted on the post of Senior Tax Assistant with the condition that he will be liable to be reverted in case his performance during the next two years period is not found to be satisfactory. A seniority list of Senior Tax Assistant showing position as on 01.01.2006 was issued wherein the name of the applicant finds place at...
To continue reading
Request your trial