Wp(C)/837/2007 Of The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax v. K.i.ismail

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/28TH MAGHA 1933 WP(C).No. 837 of 2007 (S) ------------------------- OS.1003/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER(S):------------- 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI.2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR.3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT(S):-------------- 1 K.T.ISMAIL, INCOME TAX INSPECTOR (RETD.), INCOME TAX OFFICE KANNUR., RESIDING AT BERKETH MANZIL, PATHUMKADAVU AZHIKODE P.O., KANNUR-9. BY SRI.KMV.PANDALAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 837 of 2007 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1:COPY OF O.A.NO.1003/2003 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM DATED09-12-2003.09-12-2003. P2:COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN INO.A.NO.1003/2003 DATED 19-02-2004.O.A.NO.1003/2003 DATED 19-02-2004. P3:COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.1003/2003 OF THE CAT,ERNAKULAMDATED 21-06-2006.DATED 21-06-2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN& C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.837 of 2007 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17[th] day of February, 2012 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. The first respondent had a junior A.Akhilamony in thecadre of Upper Division Clerk. He found that Akhilamony wasdrawing higher pay. He, therefore, requested for stepping uphis pay at par with that of Akhilamony. That was granted.Thereafter, he came to the Tax Assistant cadre. There hefound that P.S.Kamalasanan and C.K.Premnath Dayanand, whoare his juniors, were drawing higher pay. He wanted steppingup of his pay to that of those two persons. He made a specificand detailed representation. The establishment came out withan answer which was as vague as anything could be. Therespondent went to the Central Administrative Tribunal.Before the Tribunal, the plea of the establishment was evencontrary to their answer to the representation, as stated in the order impugned before the Tribunal. Therefore, theTribunal guided itself by well settled position of law, supportedby precedents, that when the reasons stated in anadministrative decision is challenged, it should not be open tothe establishment to supply further reasons to sustain theadministrative decision. The Tribunal rightly found that theexercise of stepping up of pay to that of an admitted junior canbe done at each post and cannot be treated as once in aservice time. The Tribunal also went into the entire gamut ofthe problem and found in paragraph 12 of the impugnedExt.P3 order that the applicant, having fulfilled all conditionsin that regard, was entitled to stepping up of his pay incomparison with the case of Kamalasanan. The drill in termsof that order is directed to be carried out in a time boundmanner. We find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity inthat. Obviously, such stepping up can be done only in terms ofthe other conditions being satisfied in accordance with therules. WPC.837/07 In the result, the writ petition fails. The same isaccordingly dismissed. No costs. The writ petitioners willimplement the direction of the Tribunal, as affirmed hereby,on or before 15.5.2012, without fail. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. kkb.18/2.