Original Application No. 433 of 2009. Case: 1. K. O. Joshua, Tax Assistant, Cochin, 2. N. I. Ziyad Hashim, Tax Assistant, Cochin, 3. C. P. Jexon, Tax Assistant, Cochin Vs 1. Union of India Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, 2. Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs, 3. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, 4. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin, 5. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Cochin. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 433 of 2009
CounselC. S. G. Nair, Sunil Jacob Jose
JudgesK. Thankappan (Judicial Member) & K. George Joseph (Administrative Member)
IssueConstitution of India, 1950 - Article 309
Judgement DateMarch 15, 2010
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

K. George Joseph (Administrative Member), (Ernakulam Bench)

  1. Aggrieved by the rejection of the representation to grant anterior date of promotion as Tax Assistants, this OA has been filed by the applicants. When it was taken up for hearing it was pointed out that the matter of this O.A. was already covered by the order in O.A. No. 320/2009. The relevant part of the said O.A. reads as follows:

    "15. Though the respondents claim that the exam conducted in December, 2003 was one for promotion under the 10% quota in which the applicants qualified, the same is patently wrong as is evident from the following twin points:-

    (a) The schedule for the departmental examination for LDCs to be promoted as Tax Assistant, vide Annexure A-15, clearly talks of the paper as "Computer Proficiency test (Theory and Practical)".

    And the syllabus annexed to the schedule clearly specifies, "Course content for computer proficiency Test for promotion of LDCs to the Grade of Tax Assistants."

    (b) The promotion test under the 10% quota is as to departmental examination with 'knowledge of typing in Hindi or English at a speed of 25 wpm and 30 wpm respectively', whereas the results declared vide Annexure to order dated 06-01-2004 shows "Result of Practical & Theory" and the result of typing speed is conspicuously missing. The term 'Practical & Theory' does relate to the computer proficiency test, as specified vide (a) above.

  2. The contentions of the private respondents also are to be rejected as the earlier decision of this Tribunal in unequivocal term has spelt out that the applicants have already qualified in the relevant test for being considered for promotion as Tax Assistant under the provisions of Rule 4(3) of the Recruitment Rules. That the applicants have taken up the test again cannot in any way adversely affect their right to claim promotion and seniority etc.,. on the basis of their qualifying in the test in 2003. Their attempt has to be taken as to prove their mettle now also.

  3. In view of the above, the O.A. fully succeeds. Annexure A-13 order is hereby quashed and set aside. It is declared that the applicants are entitled to be promoted as Tax Assistants on the basis of their qualifying in the computer proficiency test held in December, 2003 and accordingly they are entitled to be fixed their pay and allowances admissible to the Tax Assistants, notionally from the date of their passing and actually from the day they have started enshouldering higher responsibilities.

    Monetary benefits arising out of the above order shall be paid to the applicants within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Their seniority shall also be advanced accordingly, of course, after due notice to the affected parties. Time calendared for the same is also six months...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT