IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. Veerappa, H. P. Sandesh, JJ.
Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi-110001, Rep. By Its Chairperson And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Anuradha Goyal, W/O Satish Goyal And Ors. – Respondents
Review Petition No. 73 of 2021 In Writ Petition No.25502 of 2018(S-CAT)
Decided On : 18-04-2022
Constitution of India 1950 – Articles 226, 131, 137, 139A, 136, 134, 140, 142, 145, 14, 21, 32 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 47 Rule 1, Order XLVII Rule 1 – Section 114 – Order 47 – (Amendment) Act, 1976 – Habeas corpus – Mandamus – Quo warranto – Prohibition – Certiorari – Petition is filed for review of order made in Writ Petition by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowing writ petition filed by respondents setting aside order passed O.A.Nos.621-623/2016 by KAT and consequently directing review petitioners herein to ensure that notional promotion of respondents herein is considered as it was done in case of -applicant in O.A.No.170/01698/2015 which was disposed of by Central Administrative Tribunal – Para 26.
Finding of the court: It has been held that highest court in land should not, by technicalities of procedure forge fetters on its own feet and disable itself in cases of serious miscarriages of justice – It is said that “Life of law is not logic; it has been experience” – But it is equally true as Cardozo said – “But Holmes did not tell us that logic is to be ignored when experience is silent” – Those who do not put teachings of experience and lessons of logic out of consideration would tell what inspires confidence in judiciary and what does not, etc – In case on hand, review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of Constitution of India to review order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court mainly on ground of subsequent change in law by subsequent Co-ordinate Bench which is impermissible in view of statutory provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 Explanation of Code of Civil Procedure
Results: Petitioners is dismissed.
ORDER :
B.VEERAPPA, J.
The present review petition is filed for review of the order dated 21st January, 2020 made in Writ Petition No.25502/2018 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents; setting aside the order dated 7.2.2018 passed in O.A.Nos.621-623/2016 by the KAT and consequently directing the review petitioners herein to ensure that notional promotion of the respondents herein is considered as it was done in the case of D.B. Manival Raju -applicant in O.A.No.170/01698/2015 which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 21.6.2017.
I Facts of the case
2. The present respondents, filed O.A.Nos.621-623/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench to set aside the three orders dated 19.10.2015 as per Annexures-19, 20 and 21 and direct the review petitioners herein to grant applicants/respondents pro-forma/notional promotion to the post of Principal Commissioners of Income Tax and consequential retirement benefits as per ACC list dated 30.1.2015 Annexure-A5 for the panel year 2013-14 from 31.5.2014 when the posts were created as per CBDT Notification-Annexure-A4, contending that the applicants/respondents through an All India Civil Service Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) were appointed to the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) and joined service in the Cadre of ITO Group 'A'/Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax and secured their regular promotions and finally reached to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). Applicants retired on 30.9.2013, 25.5.2014 and 31.12.2014 respectively. It was further contended that the Department prepared a list of eligible candidates from the cadre of CIT to be promoted as Principal CIT against these 300 newly created posts of Principal CIT. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered the eligible candidates and submitted its recommendations to the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for approval of the proposal for empanelment of officers for promotion to the post of Principal CIT against the panel year 201314 which was approved on 30.1.2015 and the names of the present applicants were figured at Serial Nos.11, 27 and 38 respectively in the list of officers approved in the regular panel. On the same day, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance issued an order Annexure-A6 giving effect to the approval of the ACC. Unfortunately, by the time, the order Annexure-A6 could be issued, these applicants had got already retired from service and consequently, they could not be promoted despite their names having been found in the promotion list approved by the ACC. Hence, on these and several other grounds raised, the applicants sought the reliefs as prayed for before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, by the order dated 7th February, 2018 dismissed the original applications and confirmed the instructions contained in Office Memorandums of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Annexures-A7 and A8, holding that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India etc., etc -vs-K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991)4 SCC 109. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, the present respondents filed a writ petition i.e., W.P. Nos.25502/2018 before this Court.
4. Considering the rival contentions urged by both parties on merits a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the facts on record would reveal that the present respondents and one D.B. Manival Raju, served as Commissioners of Income Tax in the office of the 2nd petitioner-the Income Tax Department; the 1st applicant retired on 30.9.2013 while serving as Commissioner of Income Tax and 2nd and 3rd applicants, who were also holding similar post, retired on 25.5.2014 and 13.12.2014 respectively. Even before their retirement, an order, dated 31.05.2013, was issued by t
A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamilandu and others
Inderchand Jain (Dead) through L.Rs., Vs. Motilal (Dead) through L.Rs.
Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.
Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others
M.M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and Another
Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius
S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission
Shivdev Singh and Others -vs State of Punjab and Others
State of Haryana v. M.P. Mohla
State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.