High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-03-02OP(CAT) No.8 of 2022 disposed; Ext.P-9 order se...

Vinod Kumar G.S. & Others v Union of India & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:OP(CAT) No.8 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Viju Abraham
Judgment Date: 2022-03-02
Court Decision / Holding: The Ext.P-9 interim order vacating the stay is set aside; the interim stay granted on 20.09.2021 (Ext.P-2) is restored during the pendency of the O.P. The CAT is directed to expeditiously decide OA No.180/441/2021, after examining whether inter-se seniority should be governed by Meghachandra’s ratio or Parmar’s principles as applicable as on 19.11.2019, with due regard to Delhi High Court’s observations, and without being influenced by the observations in Ext.P-2 or Ext.P-9. The matter is to be disposed of before the CAT closes for summer holidays, ensuring justice and timely resolution.
Final Disposition: OP(CAT) No.8 of 2022 disposed; Ext.P-9 order set aside; Ext.P-2 interim stay restored; CAT directed to expeditiously decide OA 441/2021; Registry to inform CAT to conclude hearing before the summer vacation."} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }} } } } } } }

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vinod Kumar.G.S.
Vijayakumar.V.P.
Michael O.J.
M.B.Surendran
O.B.Ratheesh

Respondents

Union of India represented by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110 001
The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Admin & TPS), Kerala
James Joseph, Income Tax Inspector, KOTTAYAM Range
Amruta A.J. Noone, Income Tax Inspector, Range-I
Sruthi.M.K., Income Tax Inspector (TDS) Mananchira, Kozhicode
Ankur Sharma, Income Tax Inspector (Corporate Range-2) Kochi
Sachin Khatri, Income Tax Inspector (I&CI) Kochi
Krishna Mohan.M, Income Tax Inspector (REAC (AU)) Thiruvananthapuram
Avinash Kumar Ray, Income Tax Inspector (Investigation) Kochi
Kuldeep Singh, Income Tax Inspector (Appeals Unit) Kochi
Rohit Kumar, Income Tax Inspector (Enforcement) Kochi
Prajesh P.K., Income Tax Inspector (Investigation) Kozhikode
Vahid Ali, Income Tax Inspector (International Taxation) Kochi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Elvin Peter
• P.J. K.R. Ganesh Gouri
• Balagopal
• Abhijith.K.Anirudhan
• Sreelekshmi A.S.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.M.Ramesh Chander (Sr.)
• Sri.Lijo Joseph
• Dr.K.P.Satheesan
• Sri.P.Mohandas
• Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment, delivered by a Division Bench, concerns OP(CAT) No.8 of 2022 challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order vacating an interim stay in OA No.180/441/2021. The petitioners are five Income Tax cadre officers whose challenge centers on the inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Income Tax Department. They contend that Annexure-A3, issued on 05.08.2021, is a provisional seniority list prepared after the Supreme Court’s Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors. decision (2020) 5 SCC 689, and that Meghachandra’s ratio should govern the inter-se seniority in this case. They point to Tribunal directions in OA No.143/2019 and the Tribunal’s final order (Annexure-A2, 10.01.2020) directing finalization of seniority in line with Meghachandra, arguing that Annexure-A3 undermines those conclusions. The respondents contest that the seniority position had already been settled and published, and that Parmar’s principles (NR Parmar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2012) may apply, with Delhi High Court’s Annexure-A5 offering a contrary perspective. The Court notes the tribunal’s omission to address Meghachandra’s impact and directs that interim relief be continued, pending expeditious disposal of the OA. It ultimately set aside the Ext.P-9 order vacating the stay and restored the Ext.P-2 stay, while directing the CAT to decide the OA promptly within the parameters of Meghachandra and Parmar jurisprudence.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ratio decidendi of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 689 (inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees)
Principles governing inter-se seniority and the two-line of precedent (NR Parmar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2012)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend Annexure-A3’s provisional seniority list (05.08.2021) post-dates the Supreme Court’s Meghachandra Singh decision (2020) and should be governed by Meghachandra’s ratio, regulating inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. They cite Annexure-A1 (07.12.2018) provisional lists and Annexure-A2 (OA 143/2019, 10.01.2020) final tribunal verdict directing finalization as per Meghachandra. They assert that the Tribunal failed to discuss Meghachandra’s impact when vacating Ext.P-2, and seek continuation of the interim stay pending OA disposal. They also rely on a Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment (Annexure-A5, 09.04.2021) to bolster their position. They argue that NR Parmar’s precedent should not undermine Meghachandra’s guidance and that the final seniority list should be in line with Meghachandra’s principles rather than Parmar’s. Respondents: The respondents counter that seniority was settled long ago and published; the Meghachandra exception may apply, but Parmar’s framework governs here. They submit Annexure-A5’s Delhi judgment is not directly applicable to inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. They contend that the Tribunal’s order was based on factual and legal interpretations that require careful re-evaluation, and the final seniority list should be settled in accordance with established norms, potentially invoking Parmar’s principles.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the inter-se seniority was already settled and the final seniority list published; they argue that Parmar’s framework applies, while Meghachandra’s case should be viewed as an exception only in narrowly defined scenarios. They emphasize that the Delhi High Court’s Annexure-A5 is not directly applicable to inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, as it concerned different factual matrix (two direct recruits). They urge the CAT to consider the older Tribunal order (OA 143/2019, Annexure-A2, 10.01.2020) and the subsequent final seniority determinations, while acknowledging Meghachandra’s decision as persuasive but not a blanket override of Parmar’s precedent. They submit the issue requires meticulous factual and legal analysis by the CAT, which has not yet been done in the Ext.P-9 order.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K.Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors.	(2020) 5 SCC 689	Positive	The court treats Meghachandra as the controlling ratio for inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees and applies its principles to the case.
NR Parmar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.	(2012) 13 SCC 340	Partly Overruled / Limited	Parmar’s principles are acknowledged but viewed as superseded or limited by Meghachandra’s ratio in the present context; Tribunal should consider Meghachandra’s guidance though Parmar’s doctrine may still influence pre-Meghachandra considerations.
WP(C) No.3576/2021, Delhi High Court	(Judgment dated 18.03.2021)	Distinguished	Annexure-A5 (Delhi HC) is cited but distinguished because the Delhi case involved direct recruits versus direct recruits, not inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees.
OA No.143/2019 (Tribunal order, 10.01.2020)	OA 143/2019	Mentioned Only	Tribunal’s final order directing finalization based on Meghachandra is referenced but treated as background; not a live binding authority on the present dispute.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Vinod Kumar G.S. & Others v Union of India & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1943** ## **OP (CAT) NO. 8 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2022 IN MA NO.180-763-2021 & MA NO.180/891/2021 IN O.A NO.180-441-2021 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS IN THE O.A:** **1 VINOD KUMAR.G.S. AGED 46 YEARS** **S/O.C.GOPINATHAN NAIR, INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VERIFICATION UNIT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001, RESIDING AT VINOD VIHAR, PUNUKKONNOOR, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM-691 504** **2 VIJAYAKUMAR.V.P., AGED 44 YEARS** **S/O. V.P.BALADEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), ARYA BHANGI PINNAKLE, SA ROAD, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20, RESIDING AT B-1 ANJANEYA APARTMENTS, ELAMANA ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301** ## **3 MICHAEL O.J., AGED 54 YEARS** **S/O.JOHN MICHAEL, INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR-676 101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT OTTATHENGUMKEL, 33/6565A, MERIKUNNU POST, KOZHIKODE-673 012** **4 M.B.SURENDRAN AGED 49 YEARS** **S/O. M.R.BHASKARAN PILLAI, INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE RANGE-2, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 018, RESIDING AT MAYAMPILLIL HOUSE,PERUMPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-682 314** O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 2 ## **5 O.B.RATHEESH AGED 43 YEARS** **S/O. S.OMANAKUTTAN, INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) AAYAKAR BHAVAN KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, RESIDING AT K.A.BHAVAN, PUTHUKADU P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 585** **BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. K.R.GANESH GOURI BALAGOPAL ABHIJITH.K.ANIRUDHAN SREELEKSHMI A.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 14 IN THE O.A:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001** - **2 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018** - **3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( ADMIN & TPS), OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018** - **4 JAMES JOSEPH** **INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM RANGE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, KOTTAYAM-686 001** - **5 AMRUTHA.A.J.NOONE** - **INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-I, AYAKAR BHAVAN,** O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 3 ## **MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001** - **6 SRUTHI.M.K.,** - **INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, 8TH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001** - **7 ANKUR SHARMA, INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CORPORATE RANGE-2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018** - **8 SACHIN KHATRI, INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), KANDAKULATHI TOWER, ERNAKULAM-682001.** - **9 KRISHNA MOHAN.M, INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REAC (AU), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003** - **10 AVINASH KUMAR RAY, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SHEO VRAT RAY, INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE PRINPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), KOCHI-20, RESIDING AT RDS FLAT NO.2D, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682018.** - **11 KULDEEP SINGH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SHRI.RAJ KISHOR SINGH, INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS UNIT), KOCHI-20, RESIDING AT C44, INCOME TAX RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036.** - **12 ROHIT KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAJ KUMAR, INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTATION AS ASSISTANT ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, CHANDIGARH ZONAL OFFICE-1, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, CHANDIGARH-160018, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.1877-B/30, STREET NO.10, MAYUR VIHAR, GOHANA ROAD, SONIPAT, HARIYANA-131001, KOCHI-20, RESIDING AT C44, INCOME TAX RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036.** O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 4 - **13 PRAJEESH P.K., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PRAANNAKUMAR.P.K., INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), KOZHIKODE – 673001, RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM, PERUMKANDY, VRIDAVAN COLONY, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE – 673 017.** **14 VAHID ALI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.AISHER, INCOME TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), C.R.BUILDING, KOCHI-682018, RESIDING AT C-59, BLOCK.9, GROUND FLOOR, INCOME TAX QUARTERS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI682036.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU S., ASG OF INDIA SRI.T.C.KRISHNA** **SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER(SR.), SRI.LIJO JOSEPH, DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.P.MOHANDAS, SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2022,** **THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 5 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.** ## **=========================================** ## **O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022** [ _arising out of the order dated 27.01.2022 in MA No.180-763-2021 & MA No.180/891/2021 in O.A No.180-441-2021 on the file of the CAT, Ekm. Bench_ ] **=========================================** Dated this the 02[nd] day of March, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Alexander Thomas, J.** The order under challenge in this original petition filed at the instance of the original applicants in the O.A before the Central Administrative Tribunal is the one at Ext.P-9 order dated 27.01.2022 rendered by the Tribunal, whereby the earlier interim stay granted as per Ext.P-2 on 20.09.2021 in the O.A has been vacated. 2. We have heard all the parties _in extenso_ on the previous day as well as today. 3. The main contentions urged before us by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in the O.P/applicants in the O.A are as follows: That there is no dispute that Annexure-A3 is a provisional seniority list which has been issued on 05.08.2021 which is after rendering of the judgment dated 19.11.2019 by the Apex Court in _**K.Meghachandra Singh & Ors.** v._ _**Ningam Siro & Ors.**_ [(2020) 5 SCC 689] and that O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 6 therefore, the _ratio decidendi_ laid down by the Apex Court in _**K.Meghachandra's case**_ supra will regulate the _inter-se_ seniority between direct recruits and promotees in this case as well. Further that, on a similar issue a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has already taken a similar view in Annexure-A5 judgment rendered on 09.04.2021 in W.P(C) No.3576/2021, which has arisen out of order dated 13.10.2020 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi Bench in O.A No.2955/2019. It is also urged that earlier the department has issued Annexure-A1 provisional seniority list dated 07.12.2018 and the Tribunal as per Annexure-A2 final order dated 10.01.2020 in O.A No.143/2019 has directed that the said provisional list at Annexure-A1 herein shall be finalized on the basis of the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in _**K.Meghachandra's case**_ supra [(2020) 5 SCC 689]. Further that, the final verdict of the Tribunal at Annexure-A2 has been challenged in an original petition filed before this Court as O.P(CAT) No.106/2020, at the instance of one of the private parties therein, in which this Court has not rendered any interim stay and the said O.P is pending. That it is only thereafter that Annexure-A3 provisional seniority list has been issued by the department on 05.08.2021, which, according to the original petitioners, goes against the concluded directions and O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 7 observations made by the Tribunal in the earlier final order rendered in Annexure-A2 on 10.01.2020. It is also urged that there is no discussion by the Tribunal in the instant case while vacating the interim stay order, as to the impact of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court at Annexure-A5 to the facts and circumstances of this case and also as to the impact of Annexure-A2 final verdict of the Tribunal in O.A No.143/2019. Hence, it is urged that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in _**K.Meghachandra's case**_ supra [(2020) 5 SCC 689], alone can be the applicable criteria for determining the norms for regulating the _inter-se_ seniority between direct recruits and promotees and not on the basis of legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in _**N.R.Parmar & Ors.** v._ _**Union of India & Ors.**_ [(2012) 13 SCC 340]. 4. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents and the learned Advocates appearing for the contesting respondents in this O.P have opposed the pleas of the petitioners in the O.P. In particularly, Dr.K.P.Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.P.Mohandas, learned Advocate appearing for contesting respondent Nos.7 to 14, would urge that the seniority position was already settled long ago and what was awaiting was O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 8 only the formal publication of the final seniority list and therefore, the exception carved out in _**K.Meghachandra's case**_ supra [(2020) 5 SCC 689] would apply in this case and the said seniority list settled on the basis of the verdict of the Apex Court in _**N.R.Parmar's case**_ supra [(2012) 13 SCC 340] would apply in the instant case. Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Lijo Joseph, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.5, would submit that Annexure-A5 judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court may not be relevant in this case, inasmuch as the dispute resolved in that case was between two direct recruits and not the issue of _inter-se_ seniority between direct recruits and promotees, etc. 5. After hearing both sides, it is seen that Annexure-A1 is the provisional seniority list issued by the department as early as on 07.12.2018 which, according to the original petitioners, would vindicate their contentions that the seniority issue was pending determination, even after the verdict of the Tribunal in O.A No.143/2019. Further, it is also be noted that the Tribunal, as per Annexure-A2 final verdict rendered on 10.01.2020 in O.A No.143/2019, has directed for the finalization of the provisional seniority list at Annexure-A1 herein on the basis of the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 9 _**K.Meghachandra's case**_ supra [(2020) 5 SCC 689] and the said verdict of the Tribunal at Annexure-A2 has not been stayed in the original petition pending before this Court. 6. In the light of the above aspects, we are of the view that the petitioners herein has made out a strong _prima facie_ case in their plea that the pending seniority issue will be regulated by the verdict of the Apex Court in _**K.Meghachandra's case**_ supra [(2020) 5 SCC 689]. Further, we also note that the Tribunal has not considered these vital and crucial aspects of the matter in the rendering of the impugned Ext.P-9 order on 27.01.2022, whereby the earlier interim stay order as per Ext.P2 granted on 20.09.2021 has been vacated. Hence, on an assessment of the issues for rendering of an interlocutory order, we are of the view that the earlier stay order should have been continued, pending disposal of the O.P. 7. Further, we also note that the main matter has been ordered to be posted for hearing by the Tribunal in the third week of March, 2022. That being so, since the Tribunal has not adverted to these crucial aspects mentioned hereinabove, we are of the view that the interim stay order should have been continued. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-9 order dated 27.01.2022, will stand set aside and O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 10 the earlier interim stay order at Ext.P-2 rendered on 20.09.2021, will stand restored, during the pending disposal of the O.P. 8. Sri.T.C.Krishna, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents in this O.P, would submit on the basis of instructions that the interim stay order was vacated by the Tribunal on 27.01.2022 and this Court had granted interim stay subsequently in this O.P on 04.02.2022 and that immediately prior thereto, the official respondents had issued the final seniority list on 01.02.2022, with the condition that the same will be subject to the result of the present pending O.A and further that, this Court may direct the Tribunal to ensure the early consideration and final disposal of the O.A, without much delay, preferably before the Tribunal closes for summer vacation. 9. Taking note of the submissions on either side, the following orders are also passed for the consideration of the Tribunal: The Tribunal may ascertain as to whether the issue of _inter-se_ seniority position between direct recruits and promotees in this case was already finalized as on 19.11.2019 (date on which the Apex Court has rendered the decision in _**K.Meghachandra's case**_ supra [(2020) 5 SCC 689] on the basis of the principles laid down earlier by the O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 11 Apex Court in _**N.R.Parmar's case**_ supra [(2012) 13 SCC 340] or as to whether the said issue of _inter-se_ seniority position in this case was pending finalization as on 19.11.2019. In other words, the Tribunal will meticulously examine and ascertain as to whether the _inter-se_ seniority position in this case has to be settled on the basis of the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court subsequently in _**K.Meghachandra's case**_ supra [(2020) 5 SCC 689] or whether it is to be determined only on the basis of the earlier principles laid down by the Apex Court in _**N.R.Parmar's case**_ supra [(2012) 13 SCC 340], etc. The Tribunal will also consider all the other contentions raised by either side, including the contentions and objections raised by the petitioners/applicants against clause.7 (iii) of Annexure-A4 order as well as the various contentions of the respondents, including the abovesaid contentions referred to hereinabove. 10. In the light of the above aspects, it is ordered that the Tribunal may take all reasonable endeavours possible in the circumstances to ensure the early consideration and final disposal of the main matter in the O.A, before the Tribunal closes for summer holidays in the first/second week of April, 2022 or within any reasonable time limit that may be appropriately fixed by the Tribunal in the manner it O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 12 deems fit and proper, taking into account the interest of the administration of justice. Needless to say, the Tribunal will have to decide the main matter in the O.A, untrammeled and uninfluenced in any manner by the observations and findings made by the Tribunal at Ext.P-2 interim order, Ext.P-9 interim order as well as the directions passed by this Court in this O.P. 11. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** ## **Sd/-** vgd **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** The expression “ _Original Petition (OP)_ ” occurring in the last sentence of paras 6 & 7 of the Judgment dated 02/03/2022 in O.P(CAT) No.8/2022 is corrected as “ _Original Application (OA)_ ” as per the order dated 17/03/2022 in I.A.No.1/2022 in OP(CAT)No.8/2022. **Sd/Deputy Registrar** vgd O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 13 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 8/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.441/2021 FLED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F NO.CCIT/CHN/ESTT-1/MISC.1/MISC/2021 DATED 05.08.2021 ALONG WITH THE SENIORITY LIST ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM. NO.20011/2/2019-ESTT(D) DATED 03.08.2021 ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.16/ESTT1/CCCHN/2018-19 DATED 07.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.180/100143/2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2021 IN OA NO.180/00441/2021 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA 180/441/2021 DATED 02.11.2021 ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 26.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE CBDT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OA 180/441/2021 ANNEXURE A4 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE NO.9/11/55-RPS DATED 22.12.1959 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS ANNEXURE A4 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE NO.35014/02/60-ESTT (D)** O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 14 ## **DATED 07.12.1986 ISSUED BY THE DOP & T** **ANNEXURE A4 (C) TRUE COPY OF NO.22011/07/86 ESTT (D) DATED 03.07.1986 ISSUED BY THE DOP & T ANNEXURE A4 (D) TRUE COPY OF NO.2011/1/2006-ESTT(D) DATED 03.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE DOP & T ANNEXURE A4 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.HRD/CM/231/04/2018-19/5172 DATED 04.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX ANNEXURE A4 (F) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.HRD/CM/231/04/2018-19/517824 DATED 04.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX ANNEXURE A4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. 11/ESTT./CC-CHN/2019-2020 DATED 27.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.CCITCHN/ESTT.I/MISC/2014-2015 DATED 03.07.2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF INCOME TAX INSPECTORS PUBLISHED ON 23.07.2015(COVERING LETTER NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPLICANT) ANNEXURE A4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED LIST BEARING F.NO. 40/ESTT.MISC/CC-CHN/MM/2015-2016 DATED 26.02.2016 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION FILED IN OA NO.441/2021. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED RESPONDENTS 5,6,7 & ADDL. RESPONDENTS 10 TO 14 IN OA NO. 1808441/2021 DATED 10.12.2021. ANNEXURE A5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO.** O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 15 **HRD/CM/231/04/2018-19/5112 DATED 04.12.2018 GIVEN BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTOR TAXES TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST INSPECTORS FOR THE RECRUITMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PUBLISHED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI AS PER CIRCULAR NO.ADDL.CIT(HQ) PERS. PROM ITI INTER-SE SENIORITY 201314/2021 DATED 05.02.2021.** - **ANNEXURE A5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI AS F.NOP-316/33/SR/ITI 20162017/10486 DATED 06.10.2016.** - **ANNEXURE A5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 99014/2/86-ESTT(D) DATED 07.02.1986 ISSUED BY DOPT.** - **ANNEXURE A5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 22011/86-ESTT(D) DATED 03.07.1986 ISSUED BY DOPT.** - **ANNEXURE A5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 22011/1/2012-ESTT(D) DATED 04.03.2014 ISSUED BY DOPT.** - **ANNEXURE A5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER NO.A.35015/2018-AD.IV DATED 27.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE.** - **ANNEXURE A5(H) TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AS F.NO.A-35015/26/2018AD.IV DATED 12.02.2021 DATED 04.03.2014 ISSUED BY DOPT.** - **ANNEXURE A5(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE TO ALL THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX (CCA) AS F.NO. HRD/CMD/102/10/2017-18/2042 DATED 2/7/2021 -35015/26/2018-AD/VI DATED** O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2022 16 ## **12/02/2021 DATED 04/03/2014 DATED BY DOPT.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OA NO. 1808441/2021 DATED 07.12.2021.** **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2021 IN WP(C) NO. 3576/2021 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.** **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.08.2020 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OA NO.441/2021 DATED 16.12.2021.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OA NO. 441/2021 DATED 16.12.2021.** **ANNEXURE MA1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OA. 180/441/2021 DATED 20.09.2021.** **ANNEXURE MA2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO. 441/2021 DATED 29.09.2021 RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE MA3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING PR.CC/CHN/VIG/VC/DPC/2021-22 DATED 27.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.01.2022 IN MA NO.180/763/2021 & 180/891/2021 IN OA NO. 441/2021 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**