Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the Union of India (‘Union’) under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) whereby it was held that the respondents would be entitled to relaxation of two years while computing eligibility for promotion to the post of Additional CIT (NFSG) and that they would also be entitled to be promoted along with their juniors, a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ. found no reason to interfere with the judgment and upheld the same in its entirety.
Background
The respondents, in the present matter, were promoted as Joint Commissioners of Income Tax (‘CIT’) along with their juniors on 17-09-2010. Through this promotion, the respondents entered the 14th year from the time they had entered the service of the petitioners.
The respondent’s junior officers who had been promoted to Joint CIT along with them were promoted subsequently as Additional CIT (NFSG) on 03-01-2022 and 12-12-2022. Provoked by this, the respondents filed a petition before the CAT alleging that the promotion of the juniors was violative of sub-rules 3 and 4 of Rule 7 of Schedule II to the Indian Revenue Service Rules, 2015 (‘IRS Rules’) read with Note 1 below the said Rule.
The respondents contended that by operation of Note 1 below Rule 7(4) of Schedule II to the IRS Rules, they were entitled to two years of relaxation in being considered for promotion to the NFSG as their juniors had been so promoted w.e.f. 01-01-2022.
The petitioners contended that grant of NFSG was only a placement in a higher scale and not a promotion. They placed reliance on an office memorandum dated 05-10-2021 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (‘DoPT’).
CAT rejected the petitioner’s contention and held that it could not be said that the post of Additional CIT (NFSG) was not a promotional post. CAT also held that an office memorandum could not supersede the Recruitment Rules promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution and that because an office memorandum was only an executive instruction, it could only supplement the statutory Recruitment Rules and not supplant the same.
Aggrieved, the Union filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that it could not accept the Union’s contention that the office memorandum issued by the DoPT could supersede or hold decisions contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution.
The Court said that Rule 7(4) to Schedule II of the IRS Rules was clear in envisaging that the post of Additional CIT (NFSG) was a promotional post and that there was no escape from this Rule.
Thus, the Court held that CAT had correctly held that the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of Note 1 below Rule 7(4) of Schedule II of the IRS Rules and reckoned that there was no dispute that the respondents would be entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional CIT (NFSG) along with their juniors.
While dismissing the petition, the Court said that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of CAT and upheld the same in its entirety.
[Union of India v. Jagdish Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6899, Decided on 01-10-2024]
*Judgment by Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioners — Sr. PC Satya Ranjan Swain, Advocate Kautilya Birat
For Respondents — N/a
Buy Constitution of India HERE
