Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jodhpur v. Ashok Kumar Solanki

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6320 / 2013 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajasthan, Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA), Jaipur. 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur. Versus ----Petitioners 1. Ashok Kumar Solanki s/o Shri Shantilal Solanki, r/o 135-B, Prithvipura Rasala Road, Jodhpur, Official Address: Tax Assistant, Commissioner of Income Tax (II), Jodhpur. ----Applicant 2. Ravindra Singh, Tax Assistant through the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur. 3. Amin Khan Kathat, Senior Tax Assistant, through Income Tax Officer, Rajsamand. 4. Suresh Chandra Menaria, Tax Assistant, through the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur. 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal (Bench) at Jodhpur. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.K.K.Bissa For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kamal Dave, Mr.Dhirendra Pandey _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment 12/04/2017 1.The present writ petition arises out of the order datedDecember 22, 2011 passed by the learned Central AdministrativeTribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original ApplicationNo.215/2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed theoriginal application filed by respondent No.1. 2.The context of the litigation was that the Group ‘D’employees of the Income Tax Department are sub-categorized,and in such sub-categorization, the Group ‘D’ employees hold theposts of Junior Gestetner Operator in the pay scale of Rs.2610-4000, Daftry in the pay scale of Rs.2610-4000, Jamadar in thepay scale of Rs.2610-4000, Peon in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200and Hamal/Watchman/Farash/Darwan/ Safaiwala & Mali in the payscale of Rs.2550-3200, while consideration for the promotion ofGroup ‘D’ employees on various pay scales was to be made, as perthe qualifying examination. 3.The Department through a letter dated June 24, 2008,circulated a proposed revised seniority list of the Tax Assistants ason January 01, 2008, where the grievance arose to certainpersons. The promotion channel from Group ‘D’ to that of TaxAssistants was dependent upon a qualifying examination ofComputer Eligibility Test, and after such qualifying examinationplacing the Lower Divisional Clerks (LDC) above Group ‘D’employees, was found to be objectionable. The objection raised was rejected vide order dated July 29, 2008. The persons holdingthe post of LDC were being assigned the seniority over thepersons holding Group ‘D’ posts, even when they were appointedon promotion to the post of Tax Assistant at a later date. 4.In reply to the original application, the official respondents therein took the following stand: “20. In reply para 4.4 of the first O.A.No.215/2008, the official respondents hadsubmitted as follows:- “Since the applicant had joined the departmentas a Chowkidar, his name would be placed belowthe officials who were Daftry/Jamadar and Peonin the eligibility list of officials who were to bepromoted as Tax Assistants.” 5.In the original application, the respondents therein were considering the seniority amongst the sub-categorized Group ‘D’ employees. 4.In reply to the original application, the official respondents therein took the following stand: “20. In reply para 4.4 of the first O.A.No.215/2008, the official respondents hadsubmitted as follows:- “Since the applicant had joined the departmentas a Chowkidar, his name would be placed belowthe officials who were Daftry/Jamadar and Peonin the eligibility list of officials who were to bepromoted as Tax Assistants.” 5.In the original application, the respondents therein were considering the seniority amongst the sub-categorized Group ‘D’ employees. 6.The learned Tribunal observed that the sub-categorization is not actually based on hierarchy and thedistinction between the posts was artificial and illusory. TheDepartment therefore, ought to have determined the seniority forthe purpose of computation of eligibility criteria from the date ofjoining itself, and thus, anybody joining the Group ‘D’ post at anearlier date, was to be considered and any person joiningsubsequently, would fall in line of the seniority below the personsjoining before him. This criteria of length of service in the Group‘D’ post has to be irrespective of the nomenclature of the post. 7.In view of the above, we are of the considered opinionthat once the person has crossed the eligibility bar and qualified for being appointed on a promotional post in Group ‘C’, then hisseniority shall be determined on the basis of length of serviceearlier rendered in Group ‘D’ post and the same cannot be on thebasis of nomenclature, the person was holding in the sub-categoryof Group ‘D’ post. 8.In light of the aforesaid discussions, we find no reasonto grant any indulgence in the impugned order dated December22, 2011 and thus the same is upheld. 9.In the result, the present writ petition is dismissed. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Skant/-