Court extends interim relief, admits writ petition, sets returnable date. Civil Application to vacate relief disposed.

The Court found the issues raised by the petitioner valid, emphasizing compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment. It continued the interim relief, admitted the writ petition, and set a returnable date of 05.05.2017. The Civil Application to vacate interim relief was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-implementation of the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors.
2. Discriminatory treatment in the seniority list of Income Tax Officers (ITOs).
3. Delay in finalizing the All India seniority list of ITOs.
4. Interim relief and its implications on promotions to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT).
5. Administrative constraints cited by the Department.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-implementation of the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors.:
The petitioner’s primary grievance was the non-implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors., which dealt with the determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees based on the "rotation of quota" principles. Despite the Supreme Court's clear directives, the respondents had not finalized the seniority list of ITOs, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

2. Discriminatory treatment in the seniority list of Income Tax Officers (ITOs):
The petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment against similarly situated persons in Gujarat, despite the Supreme Court's order in their favor. This was highlighted in Civil Application No. 6862 of 2016, where the petitioner contended that the seniority list dated 01.09.2015 was contrary to the judgment in Union of India Vs. N.R. Parmar.

3. Delay in finalizing the All India seniority list of ITOs:
Despite the Supreme Court's decision on 27.11.2012, more than four years had passed without finalizing the All India seniority list of ITOs. The Department cited administrative constraints and conflicting judgments as reasons for the delay. However, the Court found these reasons meritless and emphasized the need for a time-bound schedule to finalize the seniority list.

4. Interim relief and its implications on promotions to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT):
The Court had issued an interim relief on 03.03.2017, restraining the respondents from taking further steps to prepare the panel for promotions to ACITs. The respondents sought to vacate this interim relief, citing administrative exigencies and the need to fill over 200 vacant posts. However, the Court found no reason to vacate or modify the interim relief, emphasizing the need to comply with the Supreme Court's directives before proceeding with promotions.

5. Administrative constraints cited by the Department:
The Department argued that administrative constraints and the need for legal clarifications delayed the finalization of the seniority list. The Court, however, found these excuses unconvincing and stressed the importance of adhering to the Supreme Court's judgment. The Court noted that the Department had previously assured the completion of the seniority list within a specific timeframe, which was not honored.

Conclusion:
The Court found the issues raised by the petitioner to be valid and emphasized the need for compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. N.R. Parmar. The Court decided to continue the interim relief and admitted the writ petition, setting a returnable date of 05.05.2017. The Civil Application for vacating interim relief was disposed of accordingly.

---