Case Law › High Court › Wpss/1792/2022 Of Rahul Kumar v. Princip...

Wpss/1792/2022 Of Rahul Kumar v. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 15 Sep 2022 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · ukhcucis_pg

Parties

Date of order

15 Sep 2022

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

Case summary

In Wpss/1792/2022 Of Rahul Kumar v. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

|**SL.** **No**|**Date**|**Office Notes,** **reports, orders** **or proceedings** **or directions and** **Registrar’s order** **with Signatures**||**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**| |---|---|---|---|---| |||||**W PSS 1 7 9 2 / 2 0 2 2** **Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.** Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondents. Heard. Petitioners are engaged through contractor to serve as Multi Tasking Staff from 2006 to 2021. According to the petitioners, they are being paid only ₹ 7,681/ - as remuneration; while, there are other daily wage employees serving in the Income Tax Department, who are being paid ₹ 21,000/ - as wages. This, according to petitioners, is unjust and arbitrary. They have claimed protection of equal pay for equal work. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 88 of 2021. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to make payment to the petitioners as per the Instruction/ Direction dated 30.07.2019 (contained as Annexure no. 08 to this writ petition). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commandingand| ||||directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners to the tune as the similarly situated daily wagers are getting pursuant to the order dated 29.12.2017 (contained as Annexure no.03 to this writ petition) as well as order dated 21.04.2022 (contained as Annexure no. 06 to this writ petition).” Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that petitioners are not directly employed by Income Tax Department and they are serving on contract and they are being paid salary through the contractor. Without entering into the merits of the claim made by the petitioners, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) and the Competent Authority be directed to take decision thereupon at the earliest. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to approach the Competent Authority by making representation(s) for redressal of their grievance, within two weeks from today. If such representation is made within the stipulated period, the Competent Authority shall examine their claim and take decision, as per law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation(s) along with certified copy of this order. **( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)** **1 5 .9 .2 0 2 2** Pr| |---|---|---|---|

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.