One step forward towards ACIT promotion ?
CBDT circulated all India Seniority List of ITOs as on 01.01.2012. As viewers are aware that as per CAT Ernakulam bench stay order, ITO to ACIT promotion had to be effected only after preparing of revised seniority list of ITOs. So one of the major constraint has been removed. Now the other difficulty is about calculation of exact number of available vacancies which has not been worked out yet and JCA is pursuing the matter and called for agitational programme. In the mean time number of petitions are being filed regarding seniority fixation as per NRP. Let's see whether CBDT promotes the ITOs as on adhoc basic or regular promotion can be exercised.
Click here for All India Inter-se Seniority List of ITOs as on 01.01.2012
CBDT circulated all India Seniority List of ITOs as on 01.01.2012. As viewers are aware that as per CAT Ernakulam bench stay order, ITO to ACIT promotion had to be effected only after preparing of revised seniority list of ITOs. So one of the major constraint has been removed. Now the other difficulty is about calculation of exact number of available vacancies which has not been worked out yet and JCA is pursuing the matter and called for agitational programme. In the mean time number of petitions are being filed regarding seniority fixation as per NRP. Let's see whether CBDT promotes the ITOs as on adhoc basic or regular promotion can be exercised.
Click here for All India Inter-se Seniority List of ITOs as on 01.01.2012
51 comments:
Well done. Strike worked
In mumbai mostly belong to SC/ST are covered in catch up rule
The ball seems rolling - The CBDT is looking a little serious. There is a chance of ITO to ACIT promotion.
Petitions are being filed to implement RAJEEV MOHAN JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT.
this can be done earlier, out leader should understand that sidhi ungli se ghee nahi nikalta hai
There should not be any adhoc promotion for ITO to ACIT. Only regular promotion should be demanded.
All general candidate should check whether any Sc/St candidate who was junior on the day of joining service is above them in this list. If he is, he should give representation or file application in CAT for catch up implementation immediately
Very good
Also to check focus certificates holders?
JCA should go for more actions like non participation in survey search etc.,if CBDT not come forward to consider our demands
Catch up rule will not applicable in INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. This judgement was give in state government issue.
Whether constitution of india is state issue? Apex court has declared reservation in seniority unconstitutional. Now no hinderance in implementing. Nobody is bothered to amend constitution for this trivial issue. It will be implemented in every state and central govt department. Dopt will issue an OM on catch up rule soon.
Mumbai mein koi catch up role nehin hua hai fool! Confuse mt karo
Tomato ketchup .
what is catch up rules? plz explain details.
Hone wala hai Albert Einstein. Aur koi bachane wala bhi nhi hai.
Fool, Honourable Supreme Court decision is applicable nationally. If N R P decision pertaining to gujarat region seniority wad made applicable nationally then why not tamilnadu catch up rule decision.
All affected parties should file petition s in judicial forums to issue directions to respective PR. CCITs to implement the Supreme Court decision and also make Chairman UPSC as one of the respondents to ensure that ITO to ACIT DPC.is conducted by implementing RAJEEV MOHAN and TAMILNADU decisions while fixing seniority.
After hearing this news ITGOA shouldn't withdraw the strike
As per Recent decision of Supreme Court in respect of seniority in promotion of SC/ST, Apex Court has adjudicated that constitution provide reservation in promotion but not in seniority. It means if a general candidate and SC candidate join as TA from same exam and general candidate is above in Rank. SC candidate become inspector early due to Reservation and general candidate become inspector 4 years later. Now genearal candidate will be senior to that SC candidate again and for promotion to ITO he will be considered prior to that SC candidate.
If any general candidate find any junior SC/ST candidate of his batch above him in eligibility list, he can challenge it irrespective of length of service.
this is the link of supreme Court judgment which deny seniority due to reservation in promotion:
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-08-28_1440762395.pdf
You can read that order
this is the link of supreme Court judgment which deny seniority due to reservation in promotion:
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-08-28_1440762395.pdf
The catch-up rule
Quotas in promotion naturally allow leap-frogging. Consider this : Two candidates A (open) and B (reserved) are in the same class of service Grade 1. Say, A is 5 years senior to B and both are awaiting promotion to the next level ,Grade 2. B now gets promoted over A due to the roster system. Eventually say after 3 years A also gets the promotion to the same grade as B. What happens now ? Under the catch up rule – A will regain his seniority of 5 years over B because he was denied promotion in the first place due to the roster. This means for the open category vacancy in Grade 3 – A has restored his old seniority of 5 years (ie caught up) over B.
in simple words, catch up rule is as under:-
suppose a junior SC Or ST Inspector is promoted as ITO early to his UR seniors due to reservation and senior UR candidates are promoted later say after 2 or 3 or 4 years as ITO, by catch up rule later promoted UR candidates will regain seniority over earlier promoted reserved category candidates who were junior in feeder cadre.
In other words, catch up rule means reservation of promotion only and not consequential seniority.
We are welcome all government orders and Honble Supreme Court implemented though out country uniformly in all the department. It is not happening so.
Catch up rule was only meant forGr A service only. Later on it was withdraw by the govt and passed the resolution in parliament. It is not meant for gr B and Gr C cadre. So friends do not be confused with useless comments to divert the NRP.
you were saying NRP for inspectors only. what happened? Read judgement it is for all services. but I doubt you will be able to interpret because you always think about your benefit.
Grade A me kabhi promotion me reservation tha hi nahi to catch up ka to sawal hi nahi uthata
If it was withdrawn by government but now Apex Court has given it constitutional validity and without amendment in constitution it can not be revoked
Looks like a frustrated and disgruntled direct iti. Is dreaming of becoming CIT. But will surely retire as DC only not even become JCIT. henceforth due to rajeev mohan and catch up rule direct iti will retire as DC only that direct IRS will surely ensure.
Due to catch up rule many names are missing in the list. UPSC should be wise enough to call for individual NOC from the respective ITOS of the entire I.T. department as on date before conducting DPC otherwise there will be further litigation. UPSC should also call for certificate from chairman CBDT stating that NRP RAJEEV MOHAN AND CATCH UP is implemented in their respective charges.
The DPC for ITO to ACIT should be delayed for at least 5 years. And direct iti who got ante date seniority by dubious means should be made to retire as DC only.
Very good suggestion.
Sab ka seniority list bana rahe to, mts ka v banayie. Higher grade ka seniority list ka promotion ka sirf baat chalta ha mts par v notice kare.
Many names who should not be in the list are appearing in the list. This is a mockery of seniority.
This appears to be a list of refugees seeking asylum in IRS nation.
Rajiv Mohan is a DRI and in favour of NRP. He was intercharge trasferee and got seniority frm the date of joining in new region. There is dispute of seniority between DRI inspectors not between DRI and PRI. He got seniority above the DRI who joined later because he was adjusted against the DRI quota of the same year. Where is conflict between NRP & RAJIV MOHAN
example: rajiv mohan joined on 21-08-2008 in the state of Kanpur after transafer from Goa as an inter charge transfer. Arvindkumar trivedi a DR inspector after selection of SSC exam 2005 notification joined in Kanpur region on 15-11-2008.
1. As per NR permar ruling Arvind kumar trivedi DR would have shifted to the batch 2005-06 since requisition to SSC in the year 2005. Then where is the question of joining of DR. As such, once arvind kumar trivedi was recons seniority from 2005-06, definitely he would be senior of Rajiv mohan. The reason is seniority of inter charge transferee recons from the date of joining only.
2. But the Honorable Supreme court in the case of Arvind kumar trivedi vs Rajiv mohan that after duly considering of the NR permar of this court upheld the order of Allahabad high court by ruling that Rajiv mohan is senior to arvind kumar trivedi since he is much earlier joined before the DR.
3. So what was the ruling of rajiv mohan case by Supreme court is: when DR seniority recons from the date of joining only then the inter charge seniority counts if he joins earlier or he will be junior if he joins after DR in that year. Because NR permar speaks about requisition and advertisement both falls in a year and those advertised vacancies are filled up. In Rajiv mohan case speaks about the DRs date of joining.
4. Once the date of joining is confirmed to DR where is the question of requisition year. So 100 to 200% both the decissions are contradictory to each other. Once the DR recons seniority from the date of joining , definitely the same interse seniority applicable to for PR and DR. There was no misnomer in under standing. View from the angle of justice. The Honorable Supreme court of full bench in so many cases including the judges cases held that the Direct recruitee gets seniority from the day born in the cadre and never gets seniority retrospectively and without appointed in the said cadre. Rajiv mohan case was rightly held. With regard to NR permar the supreme court explained the meaning of 3.7.86 and how it supersides the 3.3.2008 and also the facts of those NR permar case is totally different and it never happened in the department in any year. Please better under stand.
Appointment to the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors in the Income-Tax Department is made by way of promotion, as also, by direct recruitment in the ratio of 2:1 respectively, i.e., 66-2/3 by promotion and 33-1/3 by direct recruitment. The controversy in TC (C) no.91 of 2006 pertains to vacancies for the year 1993-94. The vacancies for the year 1993-94 which were identified to be filled up by way of promotion were referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee), whereas, those identified to be filled up by direct recruitment, were simultaneously referred to the Staff Selection Commission. Matters snowballed as some promotee Income Tax Inspectors were promoted to the next higher post of Income Tax Officer. Certain direct recruits who considered themselves senior to the promoted Income Tax Officers, approached the CAT, Principal Bench, seeking consideration for promotion to the cadre of Income Tax Officers, from the date their juniors were promoted as such.
A two judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice D.K. Jain and Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar in November 2012 IN THE CASE OF nr PERMAR passed an order in this case declining the claim of the promotees, that the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, should be assigned seniority with reference to the date of their actual appointment in the Income Tax Department
Can you tell, against which quota (direct or promotee) Rajeev Mohan adjusted? If you dont know, you know nothing.
U r telling a old story friend, lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.
Judgements have since come that direct recruits will get seniority from the day they join.
Why UDC are claiming seniority as par NRP
Because Parmarji has told them
Opportunist people. When failed to stop supreme court judgement (nrp) implementation, started crying for nrp benefit at the cost of LDC/Peon
Over ambitious DRs scums dreaming of becoming CIT thru back door but will retire as promotee DC
NRP is applicable where ever there is a element of Direct and promotee. UDC is a direct post so Nrp is applicable. CBDT has also directed to implement nrp to udc. Bhik nahi mang rahe hai. as per law we are asking. Dont act smart dr Iti cum promotee AC. IRS ke samne tumhari aukat kuchh bhi nahi hai
You will get finished in the fire of jealousy
It means you understand the decision of supreme court. It is beneficial to UDCs
Will choke when retire as DCIT that too promotee.
POLISHERS OF DIRECT IRS -- direct itis
Selfish DRs itis want to hoping to become CIT "" some day "" in dreams.
In NR permar promotees have occupied the quota of direct recruitees as per government policy in 1993 that the additional manpower created in the cadre of Inspector should be filled by 100% promotion but before receipt of such, as usual, the CCITs have sent requisition to SSC for direct recruitment. Thus to settle that case, the ratio went on. But no such circumstances or facts after that period of 1993 was happened in the history of department. So, the factual matrix of that case , the supreme court clearly commented that NOT ONLY THE REQUISITION BUT ALSO THE ADVERTISEMENT AND THE THOSE ADVERTISED VACANCIES WERE FILLED UP".
COMING TO THE CASE OF RAJIVMOHAN CASE: who will be senior in service when both the direct recruitee and inter charge transferee joins in a particular year. the Common judge Mr.kehar of both the cases ruled that when an ict joins earlier in service of that particular state will become senior to those of direct recruitee joins later in the said year.
so here what is deemed date of joining and what is actual date of joining is to be considered. In any service matters seniority could be recognised on the basis of joins in service ie whether deemed or actual. Without joining it is meaningless..So either to be taken at deemed date of joining or actual date of joining. In nr permar also, the DRs after their joining only the issue of deemed date comes into picture. Hence, in NR permar case, it was ruled in the context of factual matrix tallied and held deemed date. In the case of rajivmohan case, it was ruled that actual date of joining is the crediteria for determining seniority. Rajiv mohan case ruling subsequent to NR permar and also where in this case of NR permar was taken and finally upheld the date of joining.
we dont need enemies from outside !!!
Post a Comment