IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12811 of 2008 ***** 1. Union Of India through Ministry of finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, N. Block, New Delhi. 2. Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, N. Block New Delhi. 3. Central Board of Direct Taxes, through the Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, N. Block New Delhi. 4. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Revenue Building, Beerchand Patel Marg, Patna. ……. Petitioners. Versus Shri Rajiv Sinha, aged about 45 years, posted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CO), Patna, Bihar, having an additional charge of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5, Patna, Resident of- C/o Shri Rajendra Sinha, Shanti Niketan, Parmeshwar Dayal Road, Deoghar, Permanent resident of 244 MIG, Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Hanuman Nagar, Patna…………. Respondent. ----------- For the Petitioners :Mr. Sudhir Singh, Astt. Solicitor General, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. Jayant Kumar Karn, Advocate. ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 15th December, 2008. We heard the counsel for the petitioners. The Central Government counsel does not dispute that one S.S.Thind was junior to the respondent (original applicant). He also does not dispute that the case of the original applicant and S.S.Thind is identical. That S.S.Thind has been given promotion to the next higher post in the light of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is also - 2 - not in dispute. 2. In view of this admitted position, the consideration of the matter by the Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. As a matter of fact, in paragraph 34, the Tribunal has considered the matter thus: - “Moreover, having accepted the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of S.S.Thind whose case was exactly similar to the case of the applicant and who was junior to the applicant, and having promoted him to the next higher post giving a finality to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents could not have discriminated against the applicant in so far his case for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was concerned, circumstances and facts in both the cases being exactly the same. Reliance placed in Annexure A/17 on the case of R.S. Sharma was not correct as the circumstances in that case, as already discussed above, were different.” 3. Since the case of S.S.Thind and that of the present respondent are identical, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the original application. 4. Writ petition, accordingly, has not merit and it is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-