IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 30970 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UDAYASANKAR, S/O.LATE M.P. PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 35, THURUTHI HOUSE, KUNJATTUKARA, EDATHALA. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.M.P.RETNAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL AVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -18. 2. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, O/O. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF TAX, CENTRAL AVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -18, 3. COMMITTEE ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, INCME TAX DEPARTMENT, IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN -18. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.30970/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 03/12/2004 ISSUED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. P2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF IT in the CAPACITY AS INFORMATION OFFICER. P3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/01/2007 ISSUED FROM THE DEPT. OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 09/02/2007 ISSUED BY CBDT TO R1. P5 : COPY OF CALL LETTER DATED 27/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. P6 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 30/07/2007 ISSUED BY R1 . P7 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 06/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. P8 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 07/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P9 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26/09/2007 IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.932/2007. P10 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19/11/2002 IN OP NO.29339/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST CC(C) NO.932/2007. R1(b) : COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI DATED 14/11/2006 AND 08/01/2007. R1(c) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 19/07/2007 OF ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REGARDING DIRECTION OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. R1(d) : COPY OF CLARIFICATORY LETTER DATED 06/08/2007 OF ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1(e) : COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 27/07/2008 SHOWING DATE OF DISPATCH OF LETTER TO SHRI.UDAYASANKAR. R1(f) : COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.G.S.R.321 DATED 02/09/2003 OF GOVT. OF INDIA NOTIFYING THE RECRUITMENT RULE OF GROUP-C POSTS INCLUDING THE POST OF TAX ASSISTANT IN INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. R1(g) : COPY OF REPORT OF ASST.DIRECTOR(SYSTEMS), O/O. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COCHIN COMMUNICATING TEST RESULT OF COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE. //TRUE COPY// jg PA TO JUDGE. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.30970 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The claim in this writ petition is for appointment in the Income Tax Department on compassionate ground, consequent on the death of the petitioner's father, occurred on 07/08/1998, while working as an Income Tax Officer. The present challenge is against Ext.P8 letter dated 07/08/2007, where consequent on Ext.P10 judgment dated 19/11/2002 the claim of the petitioner was considered and was rejected. 2. In my view, this claim for appointment ought to have been raised by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1995. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Ext.P9 judgment dated 26/09/2007 passed by this Court in Contempt of Court Case No.932/2007, the remedy of the petitioner against Ext.P8 order was preserved, and he was free to move before this Court or any other forum. 3. Ext.P9 is the order passed by this Court in Contempt of Court Case No.932/2007, which was filed by the petitioner WP(C) No.30970/2008 -2- complaining that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the directions in Ext.P10 judgment rendered by this Court in O.P.No.29339/2001. It was during the pendency of the Contempt of Court Case, that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was considered and was rejected. It was therefore that while closing the Contempt of Court Case, the remedy of the petitioner against Ext.P8 was preserved giving him liberty to move the appropriate forum. The forum can only be the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. Therefore, this writ petition filed before this Court is not maintainable. On that ground the writ petition is dismissed preserving the petitioner the remedy to move the Central Administrative Tribunal against Ext.P8. 5. It is directed that in case the petitioner moves the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall consider the period of pendency of this writ petition before this Court, while seeking the condonation of delay in filing the proceedings. The writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg