2017 (8) TMI 613 - HC - Indian Laws

Court orders revision of seniority list for ITOs following N.R. Parmar case, directs prompt promotion consideration.

The court found the respondent department's failure to revise the seniority list of Income Tax Officers (ITOs) as per the Supreme Court's decision in N.R. ... Revising of seniority list in the cadre of ITO - promotion from the post of ITO to the post of ACIT - Held that:- All these petitions are allowed / disposed of with the following directions: (1)That the Department to finalize the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO within a period of 8 weeks from today without fail. The Department to complete the entire process of finalization of revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO within the period of two months from today, without fail and submit the compliance report before this Court in the present proceedings just on completion of above two months. (2)As already ordered earlier till the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N R Paramr (2012 (12) TMI 872 - SUPREME COURT ) is finalized and the cases of the respective petitioners are considered for promotion to the post of ACIT, as already ordered earlier the respondents are restrained from filling up the post of ACIT on promotion on ad hoc promotion by operating the select list pre N. R. Parmar (Supra) decision. (3) However, during the aforesaid two months it will be open for the department to grant ad hoc promotion on the post of ACIT in the meantime and till revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO is finalized, by operating the draft revised seniority list and thereby to consider the case of the respective petitioners for promotion to the post of ACIT on ad hoc basis, as was done in the case of applicant of Shri Jatashanker Meena. (4) In any case, the aforesaid exercise shall be completed and the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO be finalized within a period of two months from today as stated above, and immediately, thereafter case of the respective petitioners be considered for promotion to the post of ACIT forthwith. Issues Involved:1. Inaction by the respondent department in revising the seniority list of Income Tax Officers (ITOs) as per the Supreme Court's decision in N.R. Parmar case.2. Granting promotions on an ad hoc basis using the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority list.3. Compliance with previous orders from the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court.4. Legitimate expectations and rights of the petitioners for promotion.5. Discriminatory treatment and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Inaction by the respondent department in revising the seniority list of Income Tax Officers (ITOs) as per the Supreme Court's decision in N.R. Parmar case:The court noted that the respondent department failed to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in the N.R. Parmar case (2012) 13 SCC 340, which required the revision of the seniority list in the cadre of ITO. Despite multiple directions from the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2013 and the Division Bench of the High Court in 2014, the department did not revise the seniority list. The respondent continued to operate the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority list, leading to promotions on an ad hoc basis, which the petitioners challenged.2. Granting promotions on an ad hoc basis using the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority list:The court observed that the department's continued use of the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority list for ad hoc promotions to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) was arbitrary and discriminatory. This practice adversely affected the petitioners, who were denied promotions despite being eligible. The court highlighted that the department's actions violated the petitioners' rights and legitimate expectations for promotion.3. Compliance with previous orders from the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court:The court detailed the history of non-compliance by the department, including the Tribunal's order in 2013 and subsequent contempt proceedings. Despite assurances and deadlines set by the High Court, the department failed to finalize the revised seniority list. The court noted that the department's inaction persisted even after the Division Bench granted extensions and directed the preparation of the revised seniority list by specific deadlines.4. Legitimate expectations and rights of the petitioners for promotion:The court emphasized that the petitioners had a legitimate expectation for their cases to be considered for promotion based on the revised seniority list. The court cited precedents affirming that while employees do not have an inherent right to promotion, they do have a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with established rules. The department's failure to revise the seniority list and the ad hoc promotions granted to juniors violated the petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.5. Discriminatory treatment and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:The court found that the department's actions were discriminatory and violated the constitutional rights of the petitioners. By granting ad hoc promotions to juniors based on an outdated seniority list, the department created an arbitrary and unequal treatment among employees. The court highlighted that the department's inaction and arbitrary promotions undermined the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in the Constitution.Judgment:The court issued the following directions:1. The department must finalize the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO within eight weeks.2. The department is restrained from filling the post of ACIT on an ad hoc basis using the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority list until the revised list is finalized.3. The department may grant ad hoc promotions to ACIT using the draft revised seniority list during the interim period.4. The department must consider the petitioners for promotion to ACIT immediately after finalizing the revised seniority list.The court made the rule absolute to the extent of these directions and emphasized the need for compliance within the stipulated timeframe.