IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23401 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.231/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CBDT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAMUEL THOMAS, S/O.LATE SHRI.A.T.SAMUEL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, THIRUVALLA, [RESIDING PERMANENTLY AT 52, NOEL PALM DALE, RAJAGIRI.P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030.] 2. A.G.OOMMEN, S/O.LATE SHRI.A.T.GEORGE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(HQ) (ADMN.), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018, [RESIDING AT KKRRA NO.141-A, TRANQUIL GARDEN, K.K.ROAD, CHEMBUMUKKU, KOCHI-682 021.] 3. M.K.GOPINATHAN, S/O.LATE SHRI.M.KUMARA PILLAI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INV.), OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INV.),MADAPARAMBIL BUILDING SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM,[D-92,INCOME TAX QUARTERS,PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-682 036.] ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ FOR R1,2,3 SRI.P.A.KUMARAN FOR R1,2,3 SRI.SURAJ.S FOR R1,2,3 SMT.VINEETHA B. FOR R1,2,3 SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR FOR R1,2,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.231/2009 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P1(A): PHOTOCOPY OF M.A. NO.522/2009 FOR AMENDMENT IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.231/2009 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE FILED BY RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY PETITIONERS IN O.A. NO.231/2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DT.18.3.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMNISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO.231/2009. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.23401 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the respondents. Order under challenge is the one issued by the CAT declaring respondents' eligibility for promotion to Assistant Commissioner (Senior Scale) with effect from 2005. The petitioner's case is that four years' minimum regular service is required in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner (Junior Scale) for promotion to the higher grade which is that of the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner (Senior Scale). However, after hearing both sides and on going through the order of the Tribunal, we find that the respondents did not have the required service only because their promotion from the grade of Income Tax Officer to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Junior Scale) was delayed in as much as vacancies that arose in 1999 and 2000 were filled by by promotions made only in 2001. On account of delayed promotion to the feeder 2 category, the respondents were declined further promotion to the next category. We do not find any merit in this case because the finding of the Tribunal is that those juniors to respondents were given Senior Scale through orders of the CAT, Jaipur Bench, which got confirmed by the Supreme Court. In our view, there is nothing wrong in the Tribunal declaring eligibility for promotion to the feeder category on an anterior date on account availability of vacancy and in principle if that is correct, then respondents have the required service for further promotion i.e. on account of pre-dating of promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Junior Scale). Consequently W.P.(C) is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms