CAT Orders Fresh Review Of Six Income-Tax Inspectors’ Claims To Seniority Over Later-Joining Recruits, With Relief Conditional On A Rajeev Mohan Match

Six Income Tax Inspectors sought re-fixation of their seniority in the Uttar Pradesh (East) Region, relying on the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Rajeev Mohan v. Union of India & Ors., Writ-A No. 23672 of 2006, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The respondents rejected their representations on 1 June 2026, reasoning that the benefit of Rajeev Mohan applied only to parties to that litigation.

The applicants also relied on an internal note recording that their cases were factually similar to Rajeev Mohan.

They sought seniority re-fixation and consequential promotion to Income Tax Officer.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Relying on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014, the Tribunal noted that the normal rule is to extend relief granted to a particular set of employees to other identically situated employees, since differential treatment may violate Article 14; this rule is subject to laches, delay, and acquiescence, but those exceptions may not apply where the judgment is in rem and intended to benefit all similarly situated persons.

The Tribunal also relied on the Rajeev Mohan judgment, which the applicants said had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, as the precedent relevant to their seniority claims.

The Tribunal considered that the respondents had rejected the claims solely because the applicants were not parties to Rajeev Mohan, despite the applicants’ reliance on the principle that similarly situated employees may receive the benefit of a judgment.

The internal note also recorded that the relevant facts and governing instructions were similar to those in Rajeev Mohan.

Applying the principle stated in Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the Tribunal held that the rejection orders were not sustainable.

It did not, however, finally decide that the applicants were entitled to the same relief; it remitted the matter for a fresh decision on whether their cases were indeed the same and identical.

If the applicants’ cases are found to be the same and identical, the respondents were directed to grant similar relief in accordance with law within four months of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

No order as to costs was made, and the O.A. and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.