Jaipur CAT Gives Tax Department 8 Weeks to Decide 14 Income Tax Inspectors’ Seniority Claims after Inter-Charge Transfers

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants’ representations concerning seniority under the applicable DoPT instructions/Office Memoranda

The court held

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ representations (Annexure A-1), in light of the contentions and grounds raised, and to issue a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

It also directed

The Original Application was disposed of with no order as to costs; any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

01Facts

Fourteen applicants, all serving as Income Tax Inspectors, sought recognition of their regular service in their previous charges when fixing seniority following inter-charge transfers.

p. 3

They relied on DoPT instructions/Office Memoranda concerning seniority in cases of inter-charge transfer and had individually submitted representations to the respondents.

p. 3

The applicants also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in *Pratibha Rani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*, Civil Appeal No. 3792/2019, concerning the counting of service at a previous posting for promotion eligibility following an inter-regional compassionate transfer.

pp. 3–4

The Tribunal refrained from expressing any view on the merits or on that precedent’s applicability, and considered the applicants’ request for their representations to be decided.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants’ representations concerning seniority under the applicable DoPT instructions/Office Memoranda

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal should determine the merits of the applicants’ seniority claim or the applicability of *Pratibha Rani* at this stage

p. 4

03Law Applied

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the procedural basis for an application to the Tribunal.

p. 3

The applicants relied on DoPT instructions/Office Memoranda concerning seniority of non-gazetted staff in cases of inter-charge transfer, but the Tribunal did not state or determine the substantive rule governing their seniority claim.

pp. 3–4

The Tribunal also noted the Supreme Court’s decision in *Pratibha Rani*, concerning whether service at a previous posting counts for promotion eligibility after an inter-regional compassionate transfer, but expressly left its applicability to the applicants’ case open.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

Because the applicants had filed individual representations raising their seniority claims under DoPT instructions, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to decide those representations.

p. 4

It declined to comment on the underlying facts or the applicability of *Pratibha Rani*, reasoning that doing so could influence the authority’s consideration of the representations.

p. 4

The Tribunal therefore issued a direction for reasoned administrative consideration without deciding whether the applicants’ previous service must count toward seniority.

p. 4