CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00232 of 2025 Dated, this 11th day of November, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Smt. Namita Sharma Pandey, aged about 52 years, wife of Sri Pracheesh Pandey, Resident of B1/34 G, Sector-‘G’, Jankipuram, District-Lucknow, presently posted as Commissioner (IT/AT-Appeal), Department of Income Tax at Lucknow.

….. Applicant By Advocate: Shri Shireesh Kumar VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi –

110001.

2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110001 through its Secretary.

3. The Department of Personnel and Training (Secretariat of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

…...Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(i) To direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner Income Tax and allow her promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner Income Tax with effect from 30.01.2025 in pay matrix Level-15 with all the consequential service benefits at par the officers junior to her.

(ii) Any other order which is deemed just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice along with the cost of this Original application.”

2. The applicant, an officer belonging to 1998 batch of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS, hereafter) and presently working as Commissioner (Income Tax) under the respondents, assails the decision of the respondents to defer her promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner (Income Tax) vide order dated 22.01.2025 while promoting officers junior to her vide order dated 30.01.2025.

3. The applicant’s contention is that her performance upto the year 2021-22 met the benchmark required for promotion and, therefore, deferment of her promotion is without justification and in violation of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K V Jankiraman vs Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 109

4. The respondents state that the applicant’s candidature along with other eligible IRS officers was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, hereafter) in its meeting held on 29.11.2024 for promotion to the grade of Principal CIT for the vacancy year 2024 and was assessed ‘FIT’ and recommended for promotion. It is further stated that as Principal CIT is SAG above level post, a proposal for obtaining the approval of the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC, hereafter) was sent to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT, hereafter); however, DoPT, vide communication dated 22.01.2025, conveyed that ACC has deferred the empanelment of the applicant and five other officers to the grade of Principal CIT and, therefore, her name was not included in the promotion order dated 30.01.2025. In support, the respondents cite the order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1786/2020 filed by Shri Subhash Chandra in which it was held as follows:

“10… Even where the name of the officer is cleared by the DPC the Appointing Authority will have its own discretion to verify various facts. In case of empanelment by the ACC, the discretion is still wider.

12… We make it clear that the ultimate decision will be of ACC and by no means we issue any direction touching upon its discretion.”

5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant contends that along with her, promotion of another officer Neeraj Kumar was deferred which was challenged in OA No. 1766 of 2025 Neeraj Kumar vs UOI & Ors before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and the said OA was allowed vide the judgment and order dated