Govind kumar patel and other vs REVENUE

(Open Court)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad


Original Application No. 1093/2026
th
This the 16 Day of October, 2026
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

1- Govind Kumar Patel aged about 38 years, son of Shri Jeet Lal Patel,
presently working as Income Tax Inspector in O/o The Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad stationed at R/o- 352
Khushal Ka Pura, Gohari Soraon Gohri, Prayagraj-211013.

2- Abhishek Kumar Upadhyay aged about 38 years, son of Shri
Lakshmi Kant Upadhyay, presently working as Income Tax Inspector,
O/o The Dy. CIT(H.Q.)/Admn. O/o Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, UP East Lucknow stationed at Lucknow, R/o- 632/80
Shivpuri Colony, near Wisdom Academy School, Surendra Nagar,
Kamta, Lucknow U.P.

3- Shivdeep Singh aged about 40 years, son of Shri Rajendra Singh
presently working as Income Tax Inspector in O/o The Income Tax
Officer (TDS), Sitapur stationed at Sitapur R/o- Bedhoura, Babupur,
Sitapur U.P.-261206.

4- Krishna Kumar Singh aged about 38 years, son of Shri Dinesh Singh,
presently working as Income Tax Inspector, in O/o The Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Lucknow stationed at Lucknow, R/o-
H.No. 30, Village:-Gagkalan, Teh: Pindra, Badagaon, District: Varanasi.

5- Gyan Prakash Maurya aged about 43 years, son of Shri Ram Das
Maurya, presently working as Income Tax Inspector, O/o the Income
Tax Officer (H.Q./Admn.), O/o the PCCIT U.P. East, Lucknow
stationed at Lucknow R/o- H.No. 160, Sector-5, Atal Chauraha Ke
Paas, Jankipuram Vistar, Post: Jankipuram, Lucknow.

6- Sri Vardhan aged about 41 years, son of Shri Moti Lal Mishra,
presently working as Income Tax Inspector, in NADT-RC Lucknow
stationed at Lucknow R/o 176- Jalalpur Dehat, Anshik Jaukabad,
Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha

Versus

Page 1 of 6

SAHIL SHARMA

1. Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.

2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New
Delhi.

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. (East)
Lucknow, 6th Floor, Pratyakash Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Teerth Marg,
Lucknow-266001.
…Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Devendra Narayan Pandey
O R D E R

Delivered by: Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri Devendra Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel for both the
parties, the instant Original Application is being disposed of at the
Admission stage itself.
2. The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicants
seeking following reliefs:
i) To call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders and quash and set
aside the impugned orders dated 01.06.2026 passed by Respondent No. 3;
and
(ii) Further issue a direction to the respondents to re-fix/re-determine the
seniority of the applicants in the cadre of Inspector of Income-tax, UP (East)
Region, in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court in Rajeev Mohan v. Union of India & Others [Writ-A No. 23672 of
2006, decided 13.04.2012, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
orders dated 11.03.2014 and 14.10.2015], placing the applicants above all
Direct Recruitee Inspectors of the respective CGLs batches who reported for
duty subsequent to the applicants' joining in the charge of U P East
Lucknow;
(iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal be further graciously be pleased to direct the
respondents to consequent upon such re-fixation of seniority, issue a
direction to the respondents to grant the applicant retrospective promotion to
the post of Income Tax Officer, notionally with effect from the date his
juniors (in terms of the corrected seniority) were promoted, i.e., 16.12.2022,
or such other appropriate date as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit,
together with all consequential and monetary benefits, including
notional/actual arrears of pay and allowances, fixation of pay, and seniority
in the promoted cadre;
(iv) pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice.
(v) award costs of this Original Application in favour of the applicant; and”
Page 2 of 6

SAHIL SHARMA

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits
that issue involved in this Original Application has already been set at
rest as similarly situated persons have earlier approached the
Allahabad High Court in aforesaid case and the Allahabad High Court
vide its order dated 13.04.2012 disposed of the said Writ A
No.23672/2006 (Rajeev Mohan vs Union of India & Ors), which was
affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 17306-17307/2012, but the
respondents while deciding the representation of the applicant have
rejected the claim of the applicants vide order dated 01.06.2026 on the
ground that the said judgment is to be implemented only in respect of
the parties in the said litigation and the applicants herein were not a
party to the Rajeev Mohan litigation, therefore, the benefits of the said
judgment cannot be extended to them.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that suffice it
would be that a direction may be given to the respondents to pass a
fresh reasoned order, taking into consideration the judgment passed by
the Allahabad High Court in Writ A No.23672/2006, within stipulated
time as fixed by this Tribunal. The judgment passed by Allahabad
High Court in the case of Rajeev Mohan’s case (supra), which has been
affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court is not a judgment in ‘personam’
but a judgment ‘in rem’ and as such, the same is also applicable in the
case of the applicants.
5. On the other hand, Shri Devendra Narayan Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondents seeks some more time to file counter
affidavit. He further submits that as per the board’s decision the case of
Rajeev Mohan (Supra), as relied upon by the applicants, is to be
implemented only in respect of the parties in the said litigation and,
the benefit of the said judgment cannot be extended to the applicants
herein.
6.
From perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that counsel for the
respondents was granted opportunity vide order dated 23.09.2026 to
seek instruction with regard to relief claimed by the applicants, but no
instructions/counter affidavit has been filed in the instant matter from
Page 3 of 6

SAHIL SHARMA

the respondents. Further, as per the argument of the learned counsel
for the applicants that the issue involved in this Original Application,
is now no more res integra as similarly situated persons have already
approached before the Allahabad High Court in Writ A No.23672/2006
and the Allahabad High Court vide its order dated 13.04.2012 disposed
of the said, which was affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 17306-
17307/2012 and the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in the
case of Rajeev Mohan’s case (supra), which has been affirmed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court is not a judgment in personam but a judgment
in rem , but the respondents while deciding the representation of the
applicants have not considered the aforesaid judgment as the
applicants were not the party in the aforesaid case.
7.
The applicants have also annexed the copy of the internal note
sheet dated 27.05.2026 as Annexure A-14, received through an RTI
application filed by applicant-5. The relevant portion of the said note-
sheet is quoted as under:
“ In view of the foregoing examination, the applicant's contentions are
found to be legally correct in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in Rajeev Mohan (Writ-A No. 23672 of 2006),
as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
The facts involved in the case of Rajeev Mohan are identical to those
of the present applicant. In both cases, the officials concerned were Inter-
Charge Transferees (under the direct recruitment quota) and their transfers
were governed by the Board's O.M. dated 14.05.1990. The issue in both the
matters pertains to determination of inter-se seniority between Inter-Charge
Transferees (under the direct recruitment quota) and subsequently joining
DR Inspectors. Therefore, the factual matrix as well as the governing
administrative instructions in the present case are similar to those examined
by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Rajeev Mohan case.
In view of the foregoing facts, judicial pronouncements, and the extant
instructions issued by CBDT vide letter F.No. A-32013/02/2015-Ad. VI
dated 12.08.2016, it is observed that although the representations of
the applicants find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in Rajeev Mohan vs. Union of India & Others,
as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said judgment has been
clarified by the Board to be applicable only to the parties to the said
litigation and not as a judgment in rem. Since none of the present
applicants were parties before the Hon'ble Courts in the aforesaid
matter, the benefit of the said judgment cannot be extended to them in
the absence of any general directions from the Board for universal
implementation of the same.”

Page 4 of 6

SAHIL SHARMA

8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava passed in Civil Appeal
No. 9849 Of 2014 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 18639 OF 2012)
observed that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the
Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by
extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination
and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:
“23) The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid
judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be
summed up as under:
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given
relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be
treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to
discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service
matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by
this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated
persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would
be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not
approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the
form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not
challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and
woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts
who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then
such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the
case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated
as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a
valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment
pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit
to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not.
With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to
itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a
situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the
policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma &
Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the
Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue
to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the
judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the
judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to
them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches
and delays or acquiescence.
9. In view of the above, it is evident that the impugned orders
dated 01.06.2026 passed by the respondents are not tenable in the eyes
Page 5 of 6

SAHIL SHARMA

of law and same are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the
matter is remitted back to the respondents to take a fresh decision on
the respective representations of the applicants, taking into
consideration the judgment passed in Writ A No.23672/2006 by the
Allahabad High Court and if the cases of the applicants are found to be
same and identical to that of petitioners in Rajeev Mohan’s case
(supra), similar reliefs may be granted to the applicants also, in
accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs
10. Resultantly, instant O.A. stands disposed of.
11. All pending MAs in this O.A are also stand disposed of.

(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
SahilSharma/-
Page 6 of 6

SAHIL SHARMA