Union Of India vs Samuel Thomas on 12 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23401 of 2010(S)


1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

                        Vs



1. SAMUEL THOMAS, S/O.LATE SHRI.A.T.SAMUEL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. A.G.OOMMEN, S/O.LATE SHRI.A.T.GEORGE,

3. M.K.GOPINATHAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :12/10/2010

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                         K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                          W.P.(C) No.23401 of 2010
               ....................................................................
                Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Heard the Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioners and

counsel appearing for the respondents. Order under challenge is the

one issued by the CAT declaring respondents’ eligibility for promotion

to Assistant Commissioner (Senior Scale) with effect from 2005. The

petitioner’s case is that four years’ minimum regular service is required

in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner (Junior Scale) for promotion to

the higher grade which is that of the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant

Commissioner (Senior Scale). However, after hearing both sides and

on going through the order of the Tribunal, we find that the

respondents did not have the required service only because their

promotion from the grade of Income Tax Officer to Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax (Junior Scale) was delayed in as much as

vacancies that arose in 1999 and 2000 were filled by by promotions

made only in 2001. On account of delayed promotion to the feeder

2

category, the respondents were declined further promotion to the next

category. We do not find any merit in this case because the finding of

the Tribunal is that those juniors to respondents were given Senior

Scale through orders of the CAT, Jaipur Bench, which got confirmed

by the Supreme Court. In our view, there is nothing wrong in the

Tribunal declaring eligibility for promotion to the feeder category on

an anterior date on account availability of vacancy and in principle if

that is correct, then respondents have the required service for further

promotion i.e. on account of pre-dating of promotion to the post of

Assistant Commissioner (Junior Scale). Consequently W.P.(C) is

dismissed.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
pms