O.A. No. 060/00004/2014. Case: Amrik Chand Vs Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 060/00004/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Madan Mohan, Proxy Counsel and For Respondents: K.K. Thakur |
| Judges | Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) and Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 16(1) |
| Judgement Date | July 02, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J), (Chandigarh Bench)
-
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the action of the respondents in not considering him for promotion to the post of JCIT, Income Tax vis-à-vis his junior namely Mr. B. Yogalingam, in pursuance to the order No. A-12018/1/2013-AVI dated 24.09.2013 read with order of even number dated 01.10.2013. He has sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to restore/assign him the correct seniority viz-a-viz his above named junior.
-
Pursuant to notice, Mr. K.K. Thakur, learned counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. On 12.05.2014, learned counsel for the respondents produced a copy of order dated 31.03.2014 whereby the applicant was promoted to the post of JCIT with immediate effect and not from the date when his immediate junior had been promoted, which was objected by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents sought and was granted time to get the modified order granting promotion to the applicant from due date.
-
Today, learned counsel for the respondents has filed written statement in the Registry and produced a copy of modified order dated 27.06.2014 whereby the respondents have rectified their mistake and promoted the applicant from 01.10.2013 i.e. the date his immediate junior Mr. B. Yogalingam had been promoted, which is taken on record. However, the respondents have not explained any reasons as to why they had not given promotion to the applicant in time. From the above, we draw an inference that the attitude of the respondents is of total go bye to the rules and settled law. This can also be seen from the fact that on 06.01.2014, this Court directed the respondents to file reply within two weeks failing which they shall stand restrained from making further promotion to the post of JCIT but they did not bother to file reply and made promotion of juniors of the applicant to the post of JCIT, ignoring the rightful claim of the applicant to that post. Taking cognizance of that fact, we had passed the following order on 26.01.2014.
When the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 06.01.2014, this Tribunal after noticing the facts, issued notice to the respondents. They were directed to file reply within 15 days, failing which, it was ordered, that further promotion to the post of JCIT, if any, would be stayed. That was for two counts, firstly that the applicant was going to retire on 31.03.2014 and secondly we...
To continue reading
Request your trial