CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW REVIEW APPLICATION No. 25 of 2024 In ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00514 of 2023 Dated, this 22nd day of May, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

1. Union of India through Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. (E), (Cadre Controlling Authority), 57, Ram Teerath Marg, Lucknow-226001.

…..Review Applicants By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta VERSUS Alok Kumar Srivastava, aged about 35 years, son of late Suresh Lal Srivastava, Resident of H.No. 9, Avadh Vihar Colony, Sector-11, Near V D Lawn, Indira, Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. 226016.

……..Review Respondent By Advocate: Shri Raj Singh ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Delay in moving this Review Application (RA) is condoned; MA No.

1068 of 2024 is allowed.

2. In this Review Application, the Review Applicants have prayed for review of judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 passed by this Tribunal deciding O.A. No. 514 of 2023 Alok Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors in terms of order dated 18.09.2023 passed in OA No. 535 of 2019 Khyati Chauhan vs UoI & Ors along with other connected cases keeping in view the judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani vs UOI & Ors [Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 31728/2018 with Civil Appeal No. 3793 of

2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32988/2018].

3. In the RA, the Review Applicants (Respondents in OA No. 514 of 2023) state that the controversy in OA No. 514 of 2023 [Alok Kumar Srivastava (supra)] is not similar to the controversy adjudicated by this Tribunal in OA No. 535 of 2019 [Khyati Chauhan (supra)]. They aver that the issue involved in Khyati Chauhan (supra) was with regard to counting of past service rendered by the employee on the post of Tax Assistant for consideration of promotion to the post of Senior Tax Assistant whereas in the present case of Alok Kumar Srivastava (supra) the controversy is regarding counting of service rendered by Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant where five years of regular service in the grade is necessary as per the recruitment rules. It is stated that the Review Respondent (Applicant in OA No. 514 of 2023) joined as MTS in 2012 in Mumbai Region where he was promoted to the post of Tax Assistant in 2016. Thereafter, he was reverted to the post of MTS on transfer to UP (East) Region. It is averred that the Review Respondent had given affidavit that services rendered by him in Mumbai Region will not be counted towards the minimum service, if any, prescribed for promotion/appointment to any higher grade or post in UP (East) Region.

4. Per contra, the Review Respondent avers that the Review Applicants are estopped from reversing their stand in Alok Kumar Srivastava (supra) wherein they conceded that the case was similar to Khyati Chauhan (supra). It is further averred that in the order dated 09.12.2020 transferring the Review Respondent from Mumbai Region to UP (East) Region, it was mentioned that the said order is also subject to directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani (supra).

5. The scope of review has been delineated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.

with other connected matters [2023 INSC 963], in following terms:

“16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its pow