Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—These two writ petitions were clubbed together and are being deciding by this common judgment. These writ petitions have been filed by same petitioner against the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the “Tribunal”) claiming seniority and other benefits as Income Tax Inspector. Hearing in both the writ petitions commenced together, but in Writ Petition No. 56072/2010, hearing was concluded and judgment reserved on 31.1.2012, whereas the hearing of the Writ Petition No. 23672/2006 could be concluded and judgment reserved on 21.3.2012. However, the issues involved in both the writ petitions being interconnected, both the writ petitions are decided by this common judgment.

2. The facts giving rise to these two writ petitions are as follows:

Writ Petition No. 23672/2006: The petitioner appeared in the Income Tax Inspector Examination, 1987 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission as a candidate from Maharashtra Zone. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared on 25.6.1988 and the petitioner topped the said examination. The petitioner was issued appointment letter by the Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka, Bangalore appointing him as Income Tax Inspector, Panaji, Goa where he joined as Income Tax Inspector on 13.10.1988. After his joining, petitioner submitted an application dated 28.1.1989 for transfer from Goa to Mumbai, which was rejected on 9.5.1989 on the ground that his request for transfer could be considered only after completion of 3 years of service since the transfer of the petitioner was inter-charge transfer. After completion of 3 years of service, petitioner made an application seeking his transfer to Kanpur Region. By an order dated 10.12.1991, passed by the Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Kanpur petitioner was transferred from Karnataka charge to Kanpur charge. The petitioner joined at Kanpur on 10.1.1992. The order dated 10.12.1991, provided that the petitioner shall reckon his seniority from the date when he join at Kanpur charge and his name shall be placed below all working Inspectors (Permanent/Temporary).

One Shri Ram Kumar Bhargava, filed an O.A. No. 1421/2001, in the Tribunal, at Allahabad Bench claiming determination of seniority as Direct Recruit Income Tax Inspector which was disposed of by the order of Tribunal dated 3.12.2011, directing for considering his representation pertaining to claim of seniority. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the seniority of Income Tax Inspector was redetermined, adversely affecting the petitioner. The petitioner filed representation dated 10.6.2002 claiming following reliefs:

“(A) Restoring his posing as Inspector of Income Tax in Maharashtra (Mumbai) region and to promote him as Income Tax Officer retrospectively and,

(B) Till the above relief A is given his name be placed above Shri Kapil Agarwal in the gradation list of Kanpur and,

(C) Till the relief B is given to him his name should be placed above all the direct recruited Inspectors who were not working in the Department at the date of his joining i.e. 10.1.1992.”

When the representation dated 10.6.2002 was not decided, the petitioner filed O.A. in the Tribunal, Allahabad Bench being O.A. No. 917/2003 which was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 13.8.2003, directing the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi (hereinafter called the “CBDT”) to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 10.6.2002 by a reasoned order. The Chairman, CBDT by its order dated 19.11.2003 rejected the representation of the petitioner.

Challenging the order dated 19.11.2003, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1058/2004 in the Tribunal Allahabad Bench Allahabad. The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 10.2.2006 rejected the O.A. No. 1058/2004 both on merits and on limitation.

The Writ Petition No. 23672/2006 has been filed (hereinafter called the “First Writ Petition”) praying for quashing the order dated 10.